whois oathkeepers.org
...
Updated Date: 2016-05-05T16:07:20Z
Creation Date: 2009-03-01T21:07:55Z
Registry Expiry Date: 2017-03-01T21:07:55Z
...
Wow! When I consider my last two comments on Oath Keepers, this turn of events is almost comical.
Admittedly, I have not been particularly approving of recent trends there.
One of the new moderators operates on his emotions and personal agendas. He is overly sensitive about comments regarding rogue or oath breaking LEOs. He also will not just admit that he is Muslim. Every time the word is used, he goes into Muslim defense mode. The clues are all there. I believe he is a black American Muslim, and that is OK. It's the way he goes about the Muslim defense mode that bothers me. The feeling is that he is too ashamed to admit it, ...and I know he is not obligated to reveal or state his religion, but I get the feeling he prefers the membership not know that a Muslim is moderating the forum. That seems a little disingenuous to me. Of course, this is all conjecture on my part, so don't take me to the woodshed over it. Think of it as sharing my thoughts over the campfire.
A recent thread there was regarding a Muslim only cemetery. Some were against it. Others defended it. I simply stated, "I have nothing against a bunch of dead Muslims being buried together" .
My last comment on Oath Keepers before the site vanished was in a thread about how the forum had recently turned into a cyber ghost town. The debate was about why this was happening. Someone said it was due to the warmer weather. I commented that the change was more than a few days old and personally, my interest in Oath Keepers has been waning rapidly after more than 6 years with them. My final thought was, "I think my annual dues are coming due soon and I will be thinking very hard about whether to renew." Then the next time I try to log in, there is a message about a coming New Oath Keepers with no dues. Poetic/Ironic.
No, I don't have the computer savvy to hi-Jack a website, so it wasn't me. :D
Fact: Oath Keepers still owns both domains, dot org and dot net.
Fact: Someone has attacked the domain service.
Fact: Oath Keepers is working hard and fast to restore the sites to public access at each proper url, oathkeepers.org and oathkeepers.net.
Fact: I should not say more at this time, but anticipate being free to render a quite interesting story about this "soon".
Salute!
Elias
Thanks for the update, Elias. That is good news.
Look forward to that interesting story "soon".
The domains and cert on .org & .net have expired. National is all over it.
This is the message from last morning:
Greetings,
I know you are expecting to see something else, but as all things are not as they seem. I guess the Oath Keepers should have gotten a better IT person to keep track of when their domains expired. I will entertain offers for these doamins for twenty four hours before I put them up for auction. If anyone is doubts the legal purchasing of these domains I have the receipt's and will be willing to show them before purchase. I can be reached at oathkeepersauction@gmail.com
Good Luck and Happy Bidding!
http://oathkeepers.org/Greetings,
Coming soon a New Oath Keepers ( not affiliated with any other group) with no membership fees, no greed.
From this morning:
The odd thing is...Quotewhois oathkeepers.org
...
Updated Date: 2016-05-05T16:07:20Z
Creation Date: 2009-03-01T21:07:55Z
Registry Expiry Date: 2017-03-01T21:07:55Z
...
If it expired in 2016, it should have been on the anniversary of the creation date, just like the expiry date is. How did it get grabbed 2 months into its current year?
The odd thing is...Quotewhois oathkeepers.org
...
Updated Date: 2016-05-05T16:07:20Z
Creation Date: 2009-03-01T21:07:55Z
Registry Expiry Date: 2017-03-01T21:07:55Z
...
If it expired in 2016, it should have been on the anniversary of the creation date, just like the expiry date is. How did it get grabbed 2 months into its current year?
Registry Expiry Date: 2017-03-01T21:07:55Z
Am I reading it right. . . .it should not be expired until March 1, 2017?
Wow! When I consider my last two comments on Oath Keepers, this turn of events is almost comical.
Admittedly, I have not been particularly approving of recent trends there.
One of the new moderators operates on his emotions and personal agendas. He is overly sensitive about comments regarding rogue or oath breaking LEOs. He also will not just admit that he is Muslim. Every time the word is used, he goes into Muslim defense mode. The clues are all there. I believe he is a black American Muslim, and that is OK. It's the way he goes about the Muslim defense mode that bothers me. The feeling is that he is too ashamed to admit it, ...and I know he is not obligated to reveal or state his religion, but I get the feeling he prefers the membership not know that a Muslim is moderating the forum. That seems a little disingenuous to me. Of course, this is all conjecture on my part, so don't take me to the woodshed over it. Think of it as sharing my thoughts over the campfire.
A recent thread there was regarding a Muslim only cemetery. Some were against it. Others defended it. I simply stated, "I have nothing against a bunch of dead Muslims being buried together" .
My last comment on Oath Keepers before the site vanished was in a thread about how the forum had recently turned into a cyber ghost town. The debate was about why this was happening. Someone said it was due to the warmer weather. I commented that the change was more than a few days old and personally, my interest in Oath Keepers has been waning rapidly after more than 6 years with them. My final thought was, "I think my annual dues are coming due soon and I will be thinking very hard about whether to renew." Then the next time I try to log in, there is a message about a coming New Oath Keepers with no dues. Poetic/Ironic.
No, I don't have the computer savvy to hi-Jack a website, so it wasn't me. :D
Sure it wasn't all your fault, Mr. T, I mean, Che'kee? :panic: :ohshit2:
A good ole fashioned Texas sleigh ride may be appropriate for the vermin... :occasion14:
From my end, this is the place that did the hijacking... http://www.stategeeks.com/ (http://www.stategeeks.com/)I wonder how many from the hill walk through there and with idle conversation the OK's come up.
From my end, this is the place that did the hijacking... http://www.stategeeks.com/ (http://www.stategeeks.com/)
From my end, this is the place that did the hijacking... http://www.stategeeks.com/ (http://www.stategeeks.com/)
Is that a serious accusation? All I can tell is that they're a computer repair service in Maryland with a very unprofessional webpage.
Remember, never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by stupidity.
There are many who wait for the opportunity to snatch a domain when it expires, betting they can make a buck on it. It's called speculating. An ancient, time-honored if not always honorable pursuit.
Just as Rhodes abandoned a client and hence was disbarred from practicing law, he screwed up here also.
It is the screw-ups who bring you down.
From my end, this is the place that did the hijacking... http://www.stategeeks.com/ (http://www.stategeeks.com/)
Is that a serious accusation? All I can tell is that they're a computer repair service in Maryland with a very unprofessional webpage.
It is an unsupportable allegation from someone who doesn't know what the hell they are talking about.
Remember, never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by stupidity.
There are many who wait for the opportunity to snatch a domain when it expires, betting they can make a buck on it. It's called speculating. An ancient, time-honored if not always honorable pursuit.
Just as Rhodes abandoned a client and hence was disbarred from practicing law, he screwed up here also.
It is the screw-ups who bring you down.
Remember, never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by stupidity.
There are many who wait for the opportunity to snatch a domain when it expires, betting they can make a buck on it. It's called speculating. An ancient, time-honored if not always honorable pursuit.
Just as Rhodes abandoned a client and hence was disbarred from practicing law, he screwed up here also.
It is the screw-ups who bring you down.
And then there are others who look for security holes in other people's systems, and exploit them, for yucks, for malice, or just because they are poor, broken human beings.
From my end, this is the place that did the hijacking... http://www.stategeeks.com/ (http://www.stategeeks.com/)
Is that a serious accusation? All I can tell is that they're a computer repair service in Maryland with a very unprofessional webpage.
It is an unsupportable allegation from someone who doesn't know what the hell they are talking about.
Remember, never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by stupidity.
There are many who wait for the opportunity to snatch a domain when it expires, betting they can make a buck on it. It's called speculating. An ancient, time-honored if not always honorable pursuit.
Just as Rhodes abandoned a client and hence was disbarred from practicing law, he screwed up here also.
It is the screw-ups who bring you down.
Which could be ascribed to your reply.
From my end, this is the place that did the hijacking... http://www.stategeeks.com/ (http://www.stategeeks.com/)
Is that a serious accusation? All I can tell is that they're a computer repair service in Maryland with a very unprofessional webpage.
It is an unsupportable allegation from someone who doesn't know what the hell they are talking about.
Remember, never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by stupidity.
There are many who wait for the opportunity to snatch a domain when it expires, betting they can make a buck on it. It's called speculating. An ancient, time-honored if not always honorable pursuit.
Just as Rhodes abandoned a client and hence was disbarred from practicing law, he screwed up here also.
It is the screw-ups who bring you down.
Hi Been There, and welcome to TMM's forums. I see that you are new here, and I hope you will enjoy your experience here. However, I would like to ask you for proof of your suggestion that Stewart Rhodes has been "disbarred from practicing law". Is that just something you were told, or do you have tangible evidence to support the claim that he was disbarred? Thanks for clarification on that.
Additionally, I would interject the highly probable scenario, that Stewart did not "screw-up". To the best of my knowledge, Oath Keepers retains full ownership of both domains in question, and our domain registrations were paid on schedule. I do not have tangible evidence to support my claim about that, but am going by what I was told almost three days ago by someone in a position to know in Oath Keepers' leadership staff.
Thanks,
Salute!
Elias
I........... :huh: :dontknow: :huh:
Hi Been There, and welcome to TMM's forums. I see that you are new here, and I hope you will enjoy your experience here. However, I would like to ask you for proof of your suggestion that Stewart Rhodes has been "disbarred from practicing law". Is that just something you were told, or do you have tangible evidence to support the claim that he was disbarred? Thanks for clarification on that.
Additionally, I would interject the highly probable scenario, that Stewart did not "screw-up". To the best of my knowledge, Oath Keepers retains full ownership of both domains in question, and our domain registrations were paid on schedule. I do not have tangible evidence to support my claim about that, but am going by what I was told almost three days ago by someone in a position to know in Oath Keepers' leadership staff.
Thanks,
Salute!
Elias
Thank you for the welcome.
Concerning proof of Rhodes' disbarment, there is this filing, "I
I........... :huh: :dontknow: :huh:
Hi Been There, and welcome to TMM's forums. I see that you are new here, and I hope you will enjoy your experience here. However, I would like to ask you for proof of your suggestion that Stewart Rhodes has been "disbarred from practicing law". Is that just something you were told, or do you have tangible evidence to support the claim that he was disbarred? Thanks for clarification on that.
Additionally, I would interject the highly probable scenario, that Stewart did not "screw-up". To the best of my knowledge, Oath Keepers retains full ownership of both domains in question, and our domain registrations were paid on schedule. I do not have tangible evidence to support my claim about that, but am going by what I was told almost three days ago by someone in a position to know in Oath Keepers' leadership staff.
Thanks,
Salute!
Elias
Thank you for the welcome.
Concerning proof of Rhodes' disbarment, there is this filing, "I
Heh!
Looks like the long arm of the British Accredited Registry reached through the etheric Internet and zapped him before he could paste in his filing, eh? ;)
Maybe he'll recover and return with the "rest of the story".
Salute!
Elias
Heh!
Looks like the long arm of the British Accredited Registry reached through the etheric Internet and zapped him before he could paste in his filing, eh? ;)
Maybe he'll recover and return with the "rest of the story".
Salute!
Elias
It's there now.
But again -- though this is horrible news, I must congratulate you for a strong performance in substantiating your claim about the disbarment. Wow.
Salute!
Elias
209.188.24.130 oathkeepers.org www.oathkeepers.orgYep. I am a bit stunned too. This is not good for Oath Keepers, and I would prefer that this not go any further, because in my view, Oath Keepers is a very valuable idea for the liberty movement as a whole, and this sort of thing could hurt an organization that is peopled by many good women and men, all of whom will feel the hurt of this. I know a lot of good people who are doing the lion's share of strong work under the Oath Keepers banner, many of whom will be embarrassed by the association once this gets out. I really don't want any part in letting the story out to the public -- want no part in that. So I am saddened that it showed up here at TMM's forums, but I can't rightly delete it, for it's true, and that is not my doing. It' just not a fitting portrait for a man who made the Oath a weapon for freedom. I am very sad for him, and for what this will do to his organization.
Salute!
Elias
You know, Jake, I'm thinking about this more deeply, and it occurs to me that it's entirely possible that the movement to teach people about the Oath will go forward anyway. I think Stewart has got that ball rolling. Eight years ago we hardly ever heard any politician talk about the Oath, but nowadays in any election cycle we notice that all candidates, when asked about it, declare (whether deceptively or honestly) that they will honor their Oath. Like, it's part of the national political dialogue now, and Stewart gets credit for that in my book. But however anyone feels about that, the truth is the movement, carried forward by thousands of good patriots, will continue to have an effect on politicians, police, and military. How can I know that? Simple. The many thousands who've recognized the genius in the very idea of educating about the Oath will not give up that tool just because of a misjudgment by the guy who brought it to the table. I know I won't. I've seen the power in that vision, and will not put down the tool that has been passed to me. I think many others will feel the same way.I understand Elias. It just became a little vacuum for a while. Sucked the air out out of the room so to speak. This morning, I realized that it was only the jell that held together individuals that shall continue because of their chemistry. Come to think about it, the jell is still there as with common logic and it is just the watering hole that got smacked.
Salute!
Elias
This is not good for Oath Keepers, and I would prefer that this not go any further,
Elias, this is already out in the public.
Obviously, Been There has a bone to pick and chose TMM
for his agenda driven 'spread the hate' BASHING.
It was discussed on the OK forum in
mid-November of 2015 where Stewart posted
his side of the story and it was largely put to rest.
It had a ripple effect, at the time, with some members
and leadership leaving. Fortunately, there are more
members that can discern the dire importance of the Mission
and keep the man separate. Principles before personality.
I have his posted response, in full, in my files and can post it here
or email it to you, at your discretion.
I read Stewart's explanation of the "disbarment" hullabaloo. I forget the precise details, but basically he got on some other lawyer's poop list for not being a good little cog in their machine, so they did some lawyer BS, sending stuff to him demanding he show up for whatever while he was in the middle of a family crisis (mother in law passing or something similar).
He blew off their threats, knowing that they would do more lawyer paper stuff, and not giving a shit. The way he put it, it's like they wanted him to show up so they could scold him in person, and he didn't give them the satisfaction.
Anyway... It was no mistake. It was NOT negligence. He did it on purpose.
As for this website stuff... No idea. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if the domain was allowed to expire. That sort of thing happens when nearly EVERYONE is a volunteer, running the thing in their free time (which no one has).
.
.
He has shown he will quit when faced with adversity. He is a quitter. Should you trust the mission of Oathkeepers to a quitter?
I am not an Oath Keeper. Thankfully, I have never been a part of an organization that required the Oath to be taken. I will however, chime in to say that nobody asked you to join OKers. Nobody asked you to follow Rhodes. Nobody asked you to be the judge of whether or not OTHERS should follow Rhodes. You are free to do as you please. What you seem to be implying though, is a coup. écraser légčrement, mon amie. Judging by your posts so far, you are sending up red flags. You seem to be a government "agent provocateur". Or at the very least, a misguided SJW. :ph34r:
Should you trust the mission of Oathkeepers to a quitter?
I don't know Stewart, except from his long-ago thoughtful posts on these forums as "Stewart the Yalie". I have no idea what he was going through or why he chose to do what he did. It appears that neither do you.
Bad relationships with government doesn't degrade anybody in my mind. More of a badge of honor.
This is not good for Oath Keepers, and I would prefer that this not go any further,
Elias, this is already out in the public.
Obviously, Been There has a bone to pick and chose TMM
for his agenda driven 'spread the hate' BASHING.
It was discussed on the OK forum in
mid-November of 2015 where Stewart posted
his side of the story and it was largely put to rest.
It had a ripple effect, at the time, with some members
and leadership leaving. Fortunately, there are more
members that can discern the dire importance of the Mission
and keep the man separate. Principles before personality.
I have his posted response, in full, in my files and can post it here
or email it to you, at your discretion.
Elias Alias, what one prefers be done can be contrary to what should be done. It is in the best interest of OK that every member, and potential member, know this. Without full disclosure, it will be used by those who want to discredit OK at a time of their choosing. You don't want to worry about how or when that will happen. You want to be the one to decide how and when. You don't want it to look like there is a cover up.
Waking Enigma, I got no bone to pick. I was considering joining OK. But, I don't join any organization without fully vetting the leadership and key members. I do the homework. It's called due diligence. It didn't take long to find out about Rhodes. That is why the lack of knowledge about him is surprising - if I can find this information, you can be sure your detractors can. Is it good for the membership to know less about their leader than his enemies? There lies the road to ruin. Speaking the truth is not 'spreading the hate bashing.'
If it was discussed in a forum during November 2015, that was before the disbarment. I for one would like to see Rhodes' explanation. Right now, the facts seem to bear that Rhodes did a number of things that a lawyer just does not do - he misrepresented himself before a federal court, he mislead and then abandoned clients without notice to them and the court, he ignored orders to respond to the complaints, and he blew off a court order to appear. Again, you just don't do that if you still want a career in law. Of course, if you have another source of income (like some organization you "lead") then maybe you don't care. But that's not the point. He had obligations to others, and he shrugged them off. As a man, that is something you just don't do.
You are both right, the mission is what is important. However, you cannot keep the mission and the man separate when the man threatens the success of the mission. Especially when the personality has no principles, as has been amply demonstrated. For bringing dishonor upon Oathkeepers, the only honorable thing for Rhodes to do would be to resign and remove himself from anything to do with Oathkeepers.
This is not good for Oath Keepers, and I would prefer that this not go any further,
Elias, this is already out in the public.
Obviously, Been There has a bone to pick and chose TMM
for his agenda driven 'spread the hate' BASHING.
It was discussed on the OK forum in
mid-November of 2015 where Stewart posted
his side of the story and it was largely put to rest.
It had a ripple effect, at the time, with some members
and leadership leaving. Fortunately, there are more
members that can discern the dire importance of the Mission
and keep the man separate. Principles before personality.
I have his posted response, in full, in my files and can post it here
or email it to you, at your discretion.
Elias Alias, what one prefers be done can be contrary to what should be done. It is in the best interest of OK that every member, and potential member, know this. Without full disclosure, it will be used by those who want to discredit OK at a time of their choosing. You don't want to worry about how or when that will happen. You want to be the one to decide how and when. You don't want it to look like there is a cover up.
Waking Enigma, I got no bone to pick. I was considering joining OK. But, I don't join any organization without fully vetting the leadership and key members. I do the homework. It's called due diligence. It didn't take long to find out about Rhodes. That is why the lack of knowledge about him is surprising - if I can find this information, you can be sure your detractors can. Is it good for the membership to know less about their leader than his enemies? There lies the road to ruin. Speaking the truth is not 'spreading the hate bashing.'
If it was discussed in a forum during November 2015, that was before the disbarment. I for one would like to see Rhodes' explanation. Right now, the facts seem to bear that Rhodes did a number of things that a lawyer just does not do - he misrepresented himself before a federal court, he mislead and then abandoned clients without notice to them and the court, he ignored orders to respond to the complaints, and he blew off a court order to appear. Again, you just don't do that if you still want a career in law. Of course, if you have another source of income (like some organization you "lead") then maybe you don't care. But that's not the point. He had obligations to others, and he shrugged them off. As a man, that is something you just don't do.
You are both right, the mission is what is important. However, you cannot keep the mission and the man separate when the man threatens the success of the mission. Especially when the personality has no principles, as has been amply demonstrated. For bringing dishonor upon Oathkeepers, the only honorable thing for Rhodes to do would be to resign and remove himself from anything to do with Oathkeepers.
I am not an Oath Keeper. Thankfully, I have never been a part of an organization that required the Oath to be taken. I will however, chime in to say that nobody asked you to join OKers. Nobody asked you to follow Rhodes. Nobody asked you to be the judge of whether or not OTHERS should follow Rhodes.
Should you trust the mission of Oathkeepers to a quitter?
You are free to do as you please. What you seem to be implying though, is a coup. écraser légčrement, mon amie. Judging by your posts so far, you are sending up red flags. You seem to be a government "agent provocateur". Or at the very least, a misguided SJW. :ph34r:
There are many that have been affected by following the wrong guy. Just ask Destin! He'll let you know how he really feels about Boston T. Party. :laugh: So, Is Rhodes the wrong guy to follow? I have no idea. You, along with everybody else that seeks to sign on with OKers, must make that decision for yourself.
Personally, I follow no one. I am a "maverick". I think for myself. I do not need, nor want, a "leader". Perhaps, you are the same. Well....... that is, assuming your intentions are pure, and you are not a POS agent provocateur. :ph34r:
This is not good for Oath Keepers, and I would prefer that this not go any further,
Elias, this is already out in the public.
Obviously, Been There has a bone to pick and chose TMM
for his agenda driven 'spread the hate' BASHING.
It was discussed on the OK forum in
mid-November of 2015 where Stewart posted
his side of the story and it was largely put to rest.
It had a ripple effect, at the time, with some members
and leadership leaving. Fortunately, there are more
members that can discern the dire importance of the Mission
and keep the man separate. Principles before personality.
I have his posted response, in full, in my files and can post it here
or email it to you, at your discretion.
Elias Alias, what one prefers be done can be contrary to what should be done. It is in the best interest of OK that every member, and potential member, know this. Without full disclosure, it will be used by those who want to discredit OK at a time of their choosing. You don't want to worry about how or when that will happen. You want to be the one to decide how and when. You don't want it to look like there is a cover up.
Waking Enigma, I got no bone to pick. I was considering joining OK. But, I don't join any organization without fully vetting the leadership and key members. I do the homework. It's called due diligence. It didn't take long to find out about Rhodes. That is why the lack of knowledge about him is surprising - if I can find this information, you can be sure your detractors can. Is it good for the membership to know less about their leader than his enemies? There lies the road to ruin. Speaking the truth is not 'spreading the hate bashing.'
If it was discussed in a forum during November 2015, that was before the disbarment. I for one would like to see Rhodes' explanation. Right now, the facts seem to bear that Rhodes did a number of things that a lawyer just does not do - he misrepresented himself before a federal court, he mislead and then abandoned clients without notice to them and the court, he ignored orders to respond to the complaints, and he blew off a court order to appear. Again, you just don't do that if you still want a career in law. Of course, if you have another source of income (like some organization you "lead") then maybe you don't care. But that's not the point. He had obligations to others, and he shrugged them off. As a man, that is something you just don't do.
You are both right, the mission is what is important. However, you cannot keep the mission and the man separate when the man threatens the success of the mission. Especially when the personality has no principles, as has been amply demonstrated. For bringing dishonor upon Oathkeepers, the only honorable thing for Rhodes to do would be to resign and remove himself from anything to do with Oathkeepers.
Well, you're just quite the philosopher, indeed. Of course, the way you see things is always the correct way to see things, I can surmise that from your manifest un-wavering self-assurance that you know what is best.
I am not arguing with your points. I do disagree with your perceived need to open this up and then keep it open. To me, the whole matter should be between you and Stewart, not a topic for public discussion. But that is just my opinion, and obviously is not what you would choose.
Whatever damage you want to do has already been done, so I release you to your highest good. You have every right to your opinion, and you also have the right to be void of class, dignity, compassion, and forgiveness. If that is what gives you your jollies, then so be it. I'm just cut from a different cloth, so I'll invite you to keep your opinions while you reciprocate that right to me as well. It is my opinion that a man -- any man -- can make mistakes, for we all seem to make mistakes at one time or another. However, when a man has given this country as valuable a vision as Stewart has given the nation, I tend to recall my capacity for compassion and forgiveness, while it appears that you enjoy twisting the knife after you've stabbed it in. Like I said, I sense that you and I are not cut from the same cloth, but I'm okay with that.
As the owner of these forums and having been the senior editor for Oath Keepers for almost seven years now, I can tell you that I may know more about Stewart and Oath Keepers than your "due diligence" has provided your discernment. I submit (not to you, but to other readers here) that if you knew what I know you may not be so sure about how to respond to Stewart's mistakes. I am not going to be the one to throw Stewart under the bus, for I still believe that all men make mistakes and I would not deprive Stewart of the opportunity to correct past mistakes. That would be what Christians refer to as "God's business", not mine. It's between Stewart and his conscience.
I am just lamenting that TMM now is on record for publishing this embarrassment, but I am not saying you are wrong about your ice-cold points. What I would love to see happen in your mind would be a recollection of various aspects of Love's thought system, such as compassion, mercy, forgiveness, considerateness, empathy, personal dignity, balance, and oh yes, also some refreshing humility. Your notion of Stewart somehow needing to resign from the organization he created, based on some errors he made in his private role as an attorney, indicates to me that you have little of those traits I just listed. But please do go forward as you will. You are abiding by our terms of service here, and are welcome to express your truest nature as best you will.
I would like to state that Stewart owns Oath Keepers, but I own TMM's forums and national website. The two are not related, not connected other than by coincidences such as Stewart having been registered here for a couple of years before he started Oath Keepers and the fact that I work for Oath Keepers as their editor. TMM is its own entity, was here long before Oath Keepers came along, and remains completely a separate entity in all respects. I own the license for The Mental Militia LLC, which is a registered business. I have no ownership in Oath Keepers. In that context, what goes on with Oath Keepers cannot be a reflection upon The Mental Militia. Thanks for reading. As Kurt Vonnegut would say, "Welcome To The Monkey House". ;)
Salute!
Elias
So you were "considering" joining, huh? I assume by that you mean you haven't joined. For a non member with no bone to pick you certainly seem to have your opinion about Stewart Rhodes and what Oathkeepers need. Well alright, you have a right to your opinion just as do I, and my opinion is I'm less sure about your commitment to the OK mission as I am about your desire to discredit Stewart. Just out of curiosity, you wouldn't happen to work for an alphabet agency would you?
This is not good for Oath Keepers, and I would prefer that this not go any further,
Elias, this is already out in the public.
Obviously, Been There has a bone to pick and chose TMM
for his agenda driven 'spread the hate' BASHING.
It was discussed on the OK forum in
mid-November of 2015 where Stewart posted
his side of the story and it was largely put to rest.
It had a ripple effect, at the time, with some members
and leadership leaving. Fortunately, there are more
members that can discern the dire importance of the Mission
and keep the man separate. Principles before personality.
I have his posted response, in full, in my files and can post it here
or email it to you, at your discretion.
Elias Alias, what one prefers be done can be contrary to what should be done. It is in the best interest of OK that every member, and potential member, know this. Without full disclosure, it will be used by those who want to discredit OK at a time of their choosing. You don't want to worry about how or when that will happen. You want to be the one to decide how and when. You don't want it to look like there is a cover up.
Waking Enigma, I got no bone to pick. I was considering joining OK. But, I don't join any organization without fully vetting the leadership and key members. I do the homework. It's called due diligence. It didn't take long to find out about Rhodes. That is why the lack of knowledge about him is surprising - if I can find this information, you can be sure your detractors can. Is it good for the membership to know less about their leader than his enemies? There lies the road to ruin. Speaking the truth is not 'spreading the hate bashing.'
If it was discussed in a forum during November 2015, that was before the disbarment. I for one would like to see Rhodes' explanation. Right now, the facts seem to bear that Rhodes did a number of things that a lawyer just does not do - he misrepresented himself before a federal court, he mislead and then abandoned clients without notice to them and the court, he ignored orders to respond to the complaints, and he blew off a court order to appear. Again, you just don't do that if you still want a career in law. Of course, if you have another source of income (like some organization you "lead") then maybe you don't care. But that's not the point. He had obligations to others, and he shrugged them off. As a man, that is something you just don't do.
You are both right, the mission is what is important. However, you cannot keep the mission and the man separate when the man threatens the success of the mission. Especially when the personality has no principles, as has been amply demonstrated. For bringing dishonor upon Oathkeepers, the only honorable thing for Rhodes to do would be to resign and remove himself from anything to do with Oathkeepers.
Well, you're just quite the philosopher, indeed. Of course, the way you see things is always the correct way to see things, I can surmise that from your manifest un-wavering self-assurance that you know what is best.
I am not arguing with your points. I do disagree with your perceived need to open this up and then keep it open. To me, the whole matter should be between you and Stewart, not a topic for public discussion. But that is just my opinion, and obviously is not what you would choose.
Whatever damage you want to do has already been done, so I release you to your highest good. You have every right to your opinion, and you also have the right to be void of class, dignity, compassion, and forgiveness. If that is what gives you your jollies, then so be it. I'm just cut from a different cloth, so I'll invite you to keep your opinions while you reciprocate that right to me as well. It is my opinion that a man -- any man -- can make mistakes, for we all seem to make mistakes at one time or another. However, when a man has given this country as valuable a vision as Stewart has given the nation, I tend to recall my capacity for compassion and forgiveness, while it appears that you enjoy twisting the knife after you've stabbed it in. Like I said, I sense that you and I are not cut from the same cloth, but I'm okay with that.
As the owner of these forums and having been the senior editor for Oath Keepers for almost seven years now, I can tell you that I may know more about Stewart and Oath Keepers than your "due diligence" has provided your discernment. I submit (not to you, but to other readers here) that if you knew what I know you may not be so sure about how to respond to Stewart's mistakes. I am not going to be the one to throw Stewart under the bus, for I still believe that all men make mistakes and I would not deprive Stewart of the opportunity to correct past mistakes. That would be what Christians refer to as "God's business", not mine. It's between Stewart and his conscience.
I am just lamenting that TMM now is on record for publishing this embarrassment, but I am not saying you are wrong about your ice-cold points. What I would love to see happen in your mind would be a recollection of various aspects of Love's thought system, such as compassion, mercy, forgiveness, considerateness, empathy, personal dignity, balance, and oh yes, also some refreshing humility. Your notion of Stewart somehow needing to resign from the organization he created, based on some errors he made in his private role as an attorney, indicates to me that you have little of those traits I just listed. But please do go forward as you will. You are abiding by our terms of service here, and are welcome to express your truest nature as best you will.
I would like to state that Stewart owns Oath Keepers, but I own TMM's forums and national website. The two are not related, not connected other than by coincidences such as Stewart having been registered here for a couple of years before he started Oath Keepers and the fact that I work for Oath Keepers as their editor. TMM is its own entity, was here long before Oath Keepers came along, and remains completely a separate entity in all respects. I own the license for The Mental Militia LLC, which is a registered business. I have no ownership in Oath Keepers. In that context, what goes on with Oath Keepers cannot be a reflection upon The Mental Militia. Thanks for reading. As Kurt Vonnegut would say, "Welcome To The Monkey House". ;)
Salute!
Elias
Elias, it is a shame that you choose to disparage the messenger, especially when the messenger thought you knew all that. You have no idea what is in my heart, nor I yours, or Rhodes. He needs no forgiveness from me. He needs forgiveness from those he's wronged.
Trying to keep this info under wraps will come back to bite OK, hard.
Let's hope we can read what Rhodes had to say.
Elias, it is a shame that you choose to disparage the messenger, especially when the messenger thought you knew all that. You have no idea what is in my heart, nor I yours, or Rhodes. He needs no forgiveness from me. He needs forgiveness from those he's wronged.
Trying to keep this info under wraps will come back to bite OK, hard.
Let's hope we can read what Rhodes had to say.
As I and others have stated, this has been in the public domain since 11-15. It is NOT
being kept under wraps.
You are making up stories that fail the facts and suit only your hate filled bashing agenda.
A person "committed to principles and ideals' would have posted an FYI link rather than
:puke: all over TMM in his first and subsequent posts.
You may be right about some of your summation but for all of the wrong reasons.
But as Elias said, please reveal yourself further.[/size]
Elias, it is a shame that you choose to disparage the messenger, especially when the messenger thought you knew all that. You have no idea what is in my heart, nor I yours, or Rhodes. He needs no forgiveness from me. He needs forgiveness from those he's wronged.
Trying to keep this info under wraps will come back to bite OK, hard.
Let's hope we can read what Rhodes had to say.
I don't feel like I am disparaging the messenger. I am disparaging the messenger's persistence in drumming on and on about another organization's president while here at TMM's forums, after I've dropped polite hints that
your "message" is not really wanted here because I chance to work for the man you want to see destroyed.
. . .
In closing this note, let me ask you to tell all readers here which organization you've started please. Give us a little background on you so we can see why we should respect you as you continue to try to destroy a man who gave this country the vision underlying the Oath.
Salute!
Elias
If you would, please post Rhodes' explanation. Right now, it seems like it is just part of a deeper hole he has been digging.
Just for clarity, I'm not angry at you, just irritated by your egoism and insensitivity. But that is not a crime here, so do carry on. You did not comment on what I told you about Jennifer Jade Jones and why she understands good reasons not to go around bashing Stewart Rhodes, even though she was the victim in all this.
You apparently have not started your own operation/organization, but you are quick to criticize those who have actually done that. Balance, Mon! Achieve some balance in your views of things. Try a little humbleness, a little caring for your fellow man, a little respect for those who *are* doing something other than riding keypads on the Net.
I've nothing else to say. May you have every blessing in life you so richly deserve. As Silver often says,
Peace!
Salute!
Elias
Been There
I have been a member of OK since its inception (Here at TMM) and have known Stewart since we first met in 2009.
I have known about his problems for about a year or so and never once felt the need to attempt to splash it all over the internet. I have never once considered them any part of my business with either OK or Stewart himself. With both of whom I do maintain relationships.
From the little I have learned from you, about you, in the recent few postings I can honestly state that I am not in the least interested in making your acquaintance. You sirrah are a back biter and the world has no need for more of those. Government seems to supply quite enough.
I, personally, will not miss your presence on these boards.
Wow. It's pretty clear to me that you did NOT come here with any thoughts about joining Oath Keepers like you have stated. You came here with an axe to grind about Stewart, and have not let up since.
He's a friend of mine, and still will be, no matter how he decides to quit his next job. Maybe he doesn't want to be a lawyer anymore because the vast majority of them are giant assholes... Kinda like you, actually. You seem to have tremendous regard for the profession since you think him quitting it is so heinous.
Are you a lawyer?
Because you seem to care a WHOLE lot more about this than anyone else around here.
If you would, please post Rhodes' explanation. Right now, it seems like it is just part of a deeper hole he has been digging.
It was posted in a private forum, so it would be inappropriate to post here, even if I was to go to the effort of finding it.
EDIT: a forum that isn't working, ROFL
Are you, or are you not, a lawyer?
.
Are you, or are you not, a lawyer?
.
Why does it matter?
Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party? As relevant a question as yours.
Are you, or are you not, a lawyer?
.
Why does it matter?
Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party? As relevant a question as yours.
You care about truth. So do I. Answer the question.
Elias
Please do let us know when the guys get the OK website back on track would you?
Thanks brother
gooch
Not sure about what you mean by "backhanded parting". You are not booted out of here. You do not have to be "liked" by people here so long as you abide by the terms to which you agreed when registering. I see no infraction on your part, and I do value open and free speech, even if it sometimes gives me personal discomfort. I believe our members here can handle things without breaking stride.
Salute!
Elias
Such theft is, as far as I know, not strictly illegal, but I'd happily use the thieves for target practice, or just watch them slowly die in agony after nailing them to a cross.
I will be attempting to remain patient while we wait for the POS to be revealed and the time and place of the "correction" to his/her/their moral failure.
I have plenty of nylon rope in 1/2" as well as 3/4" and even some 1" if it might be needed. Just gimme a shout and I'll be happy to send it along.
Knots of all types provided for free in this case.
A good ole fashioned Texas sleigh ride may be appropriate for the vermin... :occasion14:
You are in no position to make demands of me. However, I will answer your question, if you will answer the following question:
What is your full name, date of birth, address, and social security number?
It is as relevant as yours, and since we both care about the truth, you should have no objection.
You are in no position to make demands of me. However, I will answer your question, if you will answer the following question:
What is your full name, date of birth, address, and social security number?
It is as relevant as yours, and since we both care about the truth, you should have no objection.
I am a computer programmer. What is your profession?
.
FWIW, the issue regarding Rhodes was brought up here at TMM back in November 2015:
https://secure.thementalmilitia.com/forums/index.php?topic=35373.msg440688#msg440688
BeenThere, welcome to the forum! I hope you're not discouraged by the pile on, and do hope you consider sticking around. I suspect you have some quality input.
Gentlemen, just curious about something.... Earlier in the thread while discussing what a miscreant the person was for demanding ransom for a domain name some suggested death for this person. I'm assuming that y'all aren't really advocating violence? Just "guy trash talking?"
Ie:Such theft is, as far as I know, not strictly illegal, but I'd happily use the thieves for target practice, or just watch them slowly die in agony after nailing them to a cross.I will be attempting to remain patient while we wait for the POS to be revealed and the time and place of the "correction" to his/her/their moral failure.
I have plenty of nylon rope in 1/2" as well as 3/4" and even some 1" if it might be needed. Just gimme a shout and I'll be happy to send it along.
Knots of all types provided for free in this case.A good ole fashioned Texas sleigh ride may be appropriate for the vermin... :occasion14:
Elias - Thank you for keeping folks informed about what's happening with the website!
FWIW, the issue regarding Rhodes was brought up here at TMM back in November 2015:
https://secure.thementalmilitia.com/forums/index.php?topic=35373.msg440688#msg440688
BeenThere, welcome to the forum! I hope you're not discouraged by the pile on, and do hope you consider sticking around. I suspect you have some quality input.
Elias, I just attempted to post a few questions to you on the subject and for the fourth time on this thread, when I click post I get a page unavailable message; the same kind I get when trying to access the OK site. I wont try to repost those questions as it makes me feel like a writer trying to rewrite a novel after a transcript has been stolen :laugh: :rolleyes:
Klapton, I deleted the post in which we both had edited.
I have a question for you.
If you were me, would you give you a time-out, or just lock the thread?
Which do you recommend, Klapton?
Klapton, I deleted the post in which we both had edited.
I have a question for you.
If you were me, would you give you a time-out, or just lock the thread?
Which do you recommend, Klapton?
Do whatever you want. If I were you, and this was my forum, I would have spoken my mind the same as I have. But then, that's why Stewart fired me from the other forum. Some people need to fuck themselves, and someone should tell them to.
EDIT: So, do whatever you want. The really sad thing is that this is the most interesting discussion that's happened here in a long time.
EDIT 2: I'm also unsure what you mean by "sucker punched." These are words on the internet. I am unharmed. So is the state-worshiping minion of the prison-industrial complex I was talking to.
.
Registering yesterday and posting 20 times in those few hours. . . .. . I'm leaning towards a "torpedo" with a purpose as any sailor would say.
Elias, I just attempted to post a few questions to you on the subject and for the fourth time on this thread, when I click post I get a page unavailable message; the same kind I get when trying to access the OK site. I wont try to repost those questions as it makes me feel like a writer trying to rewrite a novel after a transcript has been stolen :laugh: :rolleyes:
I don't think he's a fedgov agent. I think he's a house-n*gger whose mad because someone defied his massah and appears to have gotten away with it.
.
I've given the dude enough lee-way to expose himself, so I do not need to make a pronouncement about his ulterior motive in being here. As he reads this, he will know his own limits, and from there I'll take care of it without sacrificing my advantage. It's psy-war, Bro. Some in our world want Oath Keepers destroyed because of the damage Oath Keepers does to the globalizing socialist bankers who seek our further, tighter enslavement. It's a real war, a psy-war, and we're here to win it, not to be jerked around by people with their own axes to grind.
Salute!
Elias
It isn't easy, but you have to be able to figure out when someone is trying to warn you of certain ruin if you continue down the road you're on.
My opinions about the viability of Oathkeepers and it's members are becoming more crystallized as I consider all the reactions posted here.
...Assuming they still own the domain, which I don't really know at this point, it's a simple problem of configuring a DNS server to point at the still working web site, or so it seems to me, though there could be subtleties I don't know about, e.g. the perp could have damaged things I haven't yet noticed. Maybe an hour of work. ...
You don't need to make any pronouncements because you have already made your opinion clear. You have every right to be suspicious and question someone's motives. If the information is false, it is an easy call.
It is much more difficult to discern whether someone is an enemy, or a potential friend and ally, when they speak the truth. As Moonbeam pointed out, the news about Rhodes' screw ups was already discussed here. Some time later, a poster mentions Rhodes' subsequent disbarment and right away it is "shoot the messenger."
An unintential messenger, because the message is one that everybody should have already known. Those that did know, do not want others to know. A good example of groupthink and the psychology of institutions.
It isn't easy, but you have to be able to figure out when someone is trying to warn you of certain ruin if you continue down the road you're on.
My opinions about the viability of Oathkeepers and it's members are becoming more crystallized as I consider all the reactions posted here.
There is an old Hebrew proverb that feels like it can be applied here.
"When the ox stumbles, all wet their knives"
~S
But please do say if you would like to see the mission of the Oath go forward, or if you feel that since Stewart is fatally marked as being a fallible human being capable of making a mistake or an error in judgment, and that since he is the founder of Oath Keepers, then it logically follows that the Oath Keepers mission is also an error slipped into the public consciousness by some sordid trick of fate. I would appreciate your remarks in response to that.
Salute!
Elias
Been there,
Why don't you start your own string of discussion?
Besides, I've been a member of OK going on two years. A lifetime member. I recall Stewart being very open about the disbarment. That has been made clear. Why do you feel it necessary to keep dragging this on? Either you are a Oah Keeper, or not. We are happy to see you go your own way. Oath Keepers are a way of life. It isn't a about any one person. The viability of our mission lies in the oaths and hearts of our membership. It lies in our combined ability to remind others their responsibility upholding the oaths they took when assuming their rolls of public service.
Do you really believe the actions or failures of one member matters? Even if our founder? It does not. Because the bottom line is the reason we are here in the first place. It supersedes individual actions or failures. It is bigger than any individual. It is a firm belief in our founding covenant between We The People and the government we allow to represent us at the Federal level.
If you believe you can taint Oath Keepers by your mean spirited words, take it somewhere else Sir.
Also, why don't you use your real name? Mine is Kenneth D. Flauding. How about yours? Personally, I smell a Troll.
But please do say if you would like to see the mission of the Oath go forward, or if you feel that since Stewart is fatally marked as being a fallible human being capable of making a mistake or an error in judgment, and that since he is the founder of Oath Keepers, then it logically follows that the Oath Keepers mission is also an error slipped into the public consciousness by some sordid trick of fate. I would appreciate your remarks in response to that.
Salute!
Elias
Since you asked for my remarks, you shall have them.
Please do not use logical fallacies such as you have presented. They muddy the water.
We are all fallible beings, we all make mistakes. What Rhodes has done goes far beyond a simple mistake or error in judgement. It was a supreme [Deleted by Elias], a massive [Deleted by Elias], one injurious decision after another. Did you read the court documents? You make it sound like it was no big deal, like he gave someone regular instead of decaf.
He proved himself unethical and untrustworthy, by misrepresenting himself and his clients, then abandoning them in their time of need.
Read, slowly, the post by Silver, linked to by Moonbeam, then come back and tell us once more that it's just a mistake or error in judgement.
It goes right to the character of the man. He violated his oath, and there has been no evidence presented that he attempted to make things right or even apologize. He then refused to answer any questions as to why he misrepresented himself to a federal court and his clients, or why he abandoned them. As a result, he was booted out of his profession. Is that how an honorable man, who made a simple mistake, behaves? How can he violate one oath, and then convince others to follow theirs? It is the epitome of hypocrisy.
Looking at other court documents, it is apparent he has a family. Does an honorable man allow his means of supporting them be taken away without a fight? How does he uphold his duty, his obligations, to them now? His reputation is ruined, by his own doing, in the eyes of those to whom duty, honor, fulfilling your obligations, and keeping your word still mean something. Try to grok that.
You ask if I would like to see the mission of OK go forward. My answer is yes, and I really don't care anymore whether you believe that or not. You are right, the mission is separate from the man. The honorable man will remove himself from the mission when he becomes a liability.
You wrote, "I have my reasons for wanting to remain outside the sphere of Stewart's personal situations, and those reasons have to do with the welfare of the liberty movement in this country." Since you are an OK editor, and someone who probably has access to Rhodes' ear, it sounds like an admission that Rhodes and his "personal situations" could be detrimental to "the welfare of the liberty movement." Please elaborate.
You also wrote, "If Stewart has some karma to deal with, that is Stewart's business and Oath Keepers' business, not mine." Are you not an Oathkeeper? Are you not someone who is active in OK? Then it is your business. It is the business of everyone in an organization to make sure that all display the judgement and character that is expected. Isn't that at the very foundation of Oathkeepers?
I also see no need to "shout from the mountaintops." I do see a need for the members of any organization to know exactly who it's leaders are. As you said, "It is much larger than the man, or any single man." Which is why, again, the honorable man would remove himself from the mission when he might hurt it.
The enemies of OK already know this information about it's leader, yet it seems you and others prefer that his own followers remain ignorant.
Granted, he did a great thing by starting OK, but Rhodes is now a huge liability. As Silver said, OK has an existential crisis. Telling people "Shh, keep your voices down about Rhodes" will not help matters.
You say you are his friend, yet you behave like he's just someone who works in the next cubicle when you write "I have my reasons for wanting to remain outside the sphere of Stewart's personal situations." Friends are aware of "personal situations," they give counsel, they seek counsel. Try to grok that while you're at it.
Finally, you have the audacity to say "TMM is not the place or vehicle for expounding on the "truth" of Stewart's disbarment is because TMM is not affiliated with Oath Keepers." Come on, now. You are an Oathkeeper, you work for the organization, and this thread is under the Oath-Keepers topic, which is under Partner Sites. Don't piss on my leg then tell me it's raining.
I could go on, but this will do for now.
https://www.oathkeepers.org is back up. Very slow, but working.
http://www.oathkeepers.net, the forums, is not yet working. It gets a NameCheap parking page.
Message from Stewart is that the site will be ready this morning, but the forums at the dot net site are still "iffey".
quote, in part:
IMO, once the website issues are fixed the OKs need to find a new leader.
BeenThere – I would have liked to have sent you a Private Message so as not to highjack this thread, however that service is unavailable at the moment. I have looked over your posts again and don’t believe you are a troll, agent, or have a personal agenda. It appears to me that you have just been treading water not actually making progress. That is, you have been merely replying to other’s comments. Too bad –I think you might be a good swimmer who can really go places! :laugh:
I think I understand what you meant about Stewart resigning. If a doctor was caught having an adulterous affair with a patient, he should resign so as not to bring down the whole practice (and his colleagues). If the CFO of Girl Scouts was caught skimming money she should resign so as not to taint the whole organization. If a marriage counselor was in the midst of a nasty divorce, perhaps he should suspend his counseling until the issue is resolved. Of course, in those examples there might be some employment contingencies put in place to protect the reputation of the organization.
It would appear that you are willing to separate the man in question from the mission/purpose of Oath Keepers. If that’s case, I would think that would be acceptable to the readers here.
I would suggest you tootle around in the other areas of this forum. I for one would like to see you weigh in on other topics (hopefully there is something floating around these halls that would whet your appetite!). I was surprised to see Klapton temporarily banned from posting and I am concerned that would happen to the new guy (assuming you’re male). This is Elias’ house so to speak. A few pages back he did ask to folks to drop the issue. Please consider respecting the host’s wishes –which doesn’t mean you agree with them –you’re just showing respect the same way you would if you were physically in his home.
Again, I would like to see your contributions elsewhere so dig into the archives –lots of gems in there!
Blessings,
Moon
It looks like Been There has been banned from posting. He posted under a modified name a few minutes ago, but that post has disappeared. He quoted ArcLighters post about how what he talked about is already happening in Tennessee. Prolly other places too.
I don't think he was a troll either. But this is Eliases place, and he can do what he wants. But it don't look good, what he did.
If you go back a page or so the profile page for this "person" is still active.
When someone gets banned (very rare hereabouts) their membership status "Newbie" in this case gets removed and the word Guest replaces it.
Opsec is right: BeenThere did try another user name and that was nuked. Saw it with my own eyes. Too bad I didn't I quote it as he mentioned receiving a ban notice. Even Klapton getting temporarily banned (which is the owner's prerogative) is unsettling.
Please note: I am watching this area, but will defer any action to Elias unless asked to intervene. Remember that each person may have only ONE account active at a time. Duplicate accounts, when discovered, will be terminated without warning.
Opsec is right: BeenThere did try another user name and that was nuked. Saw it with my own eyes. Too bad I didn't I quote it as he mentioned receiving a ban notice. Even Klapton getting temporarily banned (which is the owner's prerogative) is unsettling.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who saw that. da gooch says Been There wasn't banned but Klapton got banned from posting but not booted as a member of TMM. It looks like there is a difference between banning and booting. The only one who can answer this is Elias.
I just saw the post by Bill when I previewed my post. So I guess that does answer the question you can get banned from posting without getting booted from the forum.
Opsec is right: BeenThere did try another user name and that was nuked. Saw it with my own eyes. Too bad I didn't I quote it as he mentioned receiving a ban notice. Even Klapton getting temporarily banned (which is the owner's prerogative) is unsettling.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who saw that. da gooch says Been There wasn't banned but Klapton got banned from posting but not booted as a member of TMM. It looks like there is a difference between banning and booting. The only one who can answer this is Elias.
I just saw the post by Bill when I previewed my post. So I guess that does answer the question you can get banned from posting without getting booted from the forum.
So to go back to the post that got removed. It was for being a duplicate account. No Matter who tried to open it they are not allowed here.
So why was BeenThere banned from posting, and why all this effort to use red tape to keep us from hearing what he has to say?
So why was BeenThere banned from posting, and why all this effort to use red tape to keep us from hearing what he has to say?
I know who you are, so guess who wins, eh? Never mind. you won't have time to guess. You'll be leaving now.
So why was BeenThere banned from posting, and why all this effort to use red tape to keep us from hearing what he has to say?
Because that is what the owner of this forum chose to do after requesting that the specific topic be dropped. The owner and administrators of this forum have every right to take such actions as we find necessary.
No "red tape," just an administrative action.
So why was BeenThere banned from posting, and why all this effort to use red tape to keep us from hearing what he has to say?
It looks to me like Elias got tired of him going on about Stewart. But I can't speak for Elias. He didn't say much about it.I know who you are, so guess who wins, eh? Never mind. you won't have time to guess. You'll be leaving now.
Wait a minute again. Elias asked for BeenTheres remarks. BeenThere made his remarks. BeenThere then gets banned from posting, and then rules are used to make sure he will never be heard here again.
"Administrative action." What double talk.
Elias set out his reasons quite clearly here: https://secure.thementalmilitia.com/forums/index.php?topic=35681.msg447227#msg447227
If you do not like the rules here... the exit door is wide open.
So why was BeenThere banned from posting, and why all this effort to use red tape to keep us from hearing what he has to say?
Because that is what the owner of this forum chose to do after requesting that the specific topic be dropped. The owner and administrators of this forum have every right to take such actions as we find necessary.
No "red tape," just an administrative action.
Wait a minute again. Elias asked for BeenTheres remarks. BeenThere made his remarks. BeenThere then gets banned from posting, and then rules are used to make sure he will never be heard here again.
"Administrative action." What double talk.
:deadhorse:So why was BeenThere banned from posting, and why all this effort to use red tape to keep us from hearing what he has to say?
It looks to me like Elias got tired of him going on about Stewart. But I can't speak for Elias. He didn't say much about it.I know who you are, so guess who wins, eh? Never mind. you won't have time to guess. You'll be leaving now.
He was going on about Stewart, but Elias asked him too! Sounds like a set-up.
What does Elias mean by "I know who you are, so guess who wins, eh?"
Just in case, a reminder - if you don't hear from me, it's prolly because I got banned, or booted, or whatever such "administrative action" they want to call it.
Elias set out his reasons quite clearly here: https://secure.thementalmilitia.com/forums/index.php?topic=35681.msg447227#msg447227
If you do not like the rules here... the exit door is wide open.
All I see there is Elias being pissed off at BeenThere. There is nothing about breaking any rules.
I need to make this my sig:
If you don't hear from me again, its because I got booted, or banned, or somesuch "administrative action."
NONE of the restrictions have changed.
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Oh You poor baby does he need a bottle and a blankie?
This thread is about the OK website having been attacked. IF no one is going to discuss that topic then it can be closed to save bandwidth.
NONE of the restrictions have changed.
Wasn't complaining about the rules. Was talking about how the rules are applied.Quoteha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Oh You poor baby does he need a bottle and a blankie?
Are you for real, dude?
This thread is about the OK website having been attacked. IF no one is going to discuss that topic then it can be closed to save bandwidth.
Is there really that much bandwidth being used?
But back to the topic, has anybody figured out how the domain screw-up happened?
https://www.oathkeepers.org is back up. Very slow, but working.
http://www.oathkeepers.net, the forums, is not yet working. It gets a NameCheap parking page.
But back to the topic, has anybody figured out how the domain screw-up happened?
All I see there is Elias being pissed off at BeenThere. There is nothing about breaking any rules.
I need to make this my sig:
If you don't hear from me again, its because I got booted, or banned, or somesuch "administrative action."
https://www.oathkeepers.org is back up. Very slow, but working.
http://www.oathkeepers.net, the forums, is not yet working. It gets a NameCheap parking page.
Any more recent updates Bill?
But back to the topic, has anybody figured out how the domain screw-up happened?
Elias told me it was an inside job by a pissed off, fired admin. But that wasn't even first-person knowledge for him, so trusting me about it is probably not a good idea.
There were a few new posts up at https://www.oathkeepers.org, and the "Forums" link went to http://forum.oathkeepers.org, but that hung for me, and the site isn't responding any more. Rebooting perhaps. Or crashed.
I can only imagine how positively gleeful lurkers here from the Southern Poverty Law Center must be to hear of the troubles at OK; probably pee-ing down their legs like some over excited puppies (no insult meant to puppies!). While I have been banned from speaking there, who will join in a suggestion for OK to re-group with the power of a mission/purpose and constitution (like the one we have taken an Oath to defend) to renew OK like a Phoenix from the ashes to create a new, powerful, democratically member-driven organization, stronger than the original?
Elias, Gooch or any TMM admin. who is also in OK. Please feel free to strike my one previous comment (and this one) from this thread. I only meant to show honor, not to sow discord of any sort. Please forgive the intrusion.
Peace, Love and Brotherhood
Tahn
Now let me ask each of you please -- have you, each of you personally, gone to the national site and sent in your $25.00 annual dues to help me establish my own future income by helping me promote TMM?
Now let me ask each of you please -- have you, each of you personally, gone to the national site and sent in your $25.00 annual dues to help me establish my own future income by helping me promote TMM?
Oh, man. Now I understand what this is all about. Cash flow. The bottom line is, the bottom line. Now I gotta decide whether I should feel pity, or disgust, or what. Thanks.
Elias, Gooch or any TMM admin. who is also in OK. Please feel free to strike my one previous comment (and this one) from this thread. I only meant to show honor, not to sow discord of any sort. Please forgive the intrusion.
Peace, Love and Brotherhood
Tahn
Looking at other court documents, it is apparent he has a family. Does an honorable man allow his means of supporting them be taken away without a fight? How does he uphold his duty, his obligations, to them now?
Now let me ask each of you please -- have you, each of you personally, gone to the national site and sent in your $25.00 annual dues to help me establish my own future income by helping me promote TMM?
Oh, man. Now I understand what this is all about. Cash flow. The bottom line is, the bottom line. Now I gotta decide whether I should feel pity, or disgust, or what. Thanks.
I can only imagine how positively gleeful lurkers here from the Southern Poverty Law Center must be to hear of the troubles at OK; probably pee-ing down their legs like some over excited puppies (no insult meant to puppies!). While I have been banned from speaking there, who will join in a suggestion for OK to re-group with the power of a mission/purpose and constitution (like the one we have taken an Oath to defend) to renew OK like a Phoenix from the ashes to create a new, powerful, democratically member-driven organization, stronger than the original?
Elias, sometimes I get caught up in my issues and forget what another might be struggling with. Thank you for the gentle reminder to consider another's perspective. As for BeenThere, my intention was to encourage a newbie and I personally wanted to see what else he was capable of. Your seeming to know who he is and not approving is good enough for me! On a side note, I also know Jim and his family (from the TN OK). It sounds like there are going to be changes here at TMM as you once again take the helm. I don't know much about you as you have been MIA (understandably so) for most of my 7 years here on the boards. However, I am willing to navigate new territory with you, your ideas and your hope. Best wishes!
Blessings, Moon
Elias, sometimes I get caught up in my issues and forget what another might be struggling with. Thank you for the gentle reminder to consider another's perspective. As for BeenThere, my intention was to encourage a newbie and I personally wanted to see what else he was capable of. Your seeming to know who he is and not approving is good enough for me! On a side note, I also know Jim and his family (from the TN OK). It sounds like there are going to be changes here at TMM as you once again take the helm. I don't know much about you as you have been MIA (understandably so) for most of my 7 years here on the boards. However, I am willing to navigate new territory with you, your ideas and your hope. Best wishes!
Blessings, Moon
Well thank you Moon, and Blessings to you too. ;)
My apologies for being away for so long. Thank you for hanging in all that time. But get ready for some fun. We know what we're doing and we're going to empower a lot of people in the name of freedom and self-ownership.
I think it is great that you know Jim. I did not meet his wife, but he and I have a great dinner in SW Tennessee and I came away really respecting and appreciating him. Please send him my regards if you would. Thanks.
About how you were attempting to make BeenThere feel welcome, I sensed that you were trying to help a newbie and I had no problem with your gestures in his direction. I am proud of you for that, and also am proud of you for remembering to question everything. Like, as in, everything. So I thank you for being yourself, and hope you'll just keep right on being yourself. That will help TMM.
You'll do. ;)
Salute!
Elias
Now let me ask each of you please -- have you, each of you personally, gone to the national site and sent in your $25.00 annual dues to help me establish my own future income by helping me promote TMM?
Oh, man. Now I understand what this is all about. Cash flow. The bottom line is, the bottom line. Now I gotta decide whether I should feel pity, or disgust, or what. Thanks.
Elias, sometimes I get caught up in my issues and forget what another might be struggling with. Thank you for the gentle reminder to consider another's perspective. As for BeenThere, my intention was to encourage a newbie and I personally wanted to see what else he was capable of. Your seeming to know who he is and not approving is good enough for me! On a side note, I also know Jim and his family (from the TN OK). It sounds like there are going to be changes here at TMM as you once again take the helm. I don't know much about you as you have been MIA (understandably so) for most of my 7 years here on the boards. However, I am willing to navigate new territory with you, your ideas and your hope. Best wishes!
Blessings, Moon
Well thank you Moon, and Blessings to you too. ;)
My apologies for being away for so long. Thank you for hanging in all that time. But get ready for some fun. We know what we're doing and we're going to empower a lot of people in the name of freedom and self-ownership.
I think it is great that you know Jim. I did not meet his wife, but he and I have a great dinner in SW Tennessee and I came away really respecting and appreciating him. Please send him my regards if you would. Thanks.
About how you were attempting to make BeenThere feel welcome, I sensed that you were trying to help a newbie and I had no problem with your gestures in his direction. I am proud of you for that, and also am proud of you for remembering to question everything. Like, as in, everything. So I thank you for being yourself, and hope you'll just keep right on being yourself. That will help TMM.
You'll do. ;)
Salute!
Elias
Been there or Been here, one could only imagine where we really are..... :laugh:
I have some information about what may have happened to oathkeepers.net/forum.
I used to be known as OKTXTech on the OK forum site. If anyone is interested I could expound on what I have found. I certainly don't wish to ruffle any feathers but, I deal in reality. All bullshit stops with me.
Anyone interested?
SS
Just a reminder... This is a publicly open forum that can be read by anybody. Perception is reality, anything said is going straight to the enemies of Liberty. Patriots have a mission to spread the fruits of freedom, NOT our dirty laundry. We can not persuade people to our side if we are doing this, it doesn't matter who you are talking about, it is working against our purpose.
The Mission is first! If we didn't have this forum on the Internet we would be using Xerox machines and cassettes tapes again to spread the word, and I don't think what ever is going on, you would be printing up all about that, to spread Liberty?
I feel responsible for inviting my fellow Oath Keepers here that you would do this to Elias and our fellow Patriots, how dare you!
This is our only chance we have to save our Republic, other wise our posterity may have to wait a thousand years for Freedom to come around again.
Please pull the rope along with us in the same direction...
Now let me ask each of you please -- have you, each of you personally, gone to the national site and sent in your $25.00 annual dues to help me establish my own future income by helping me promote TMM?
Oh, man. Now I understand what this is all about. Cash flow. The bottom line is, the bottom line. Now I gotta decide whether I should feel pity, or disgust, or what. Thanks.
It is sad. It is disgusting. Knowing some of the folks involved personaly, it is downright heartbreaking.
Elias, sometimes I get caught up in my issues and forget what another might be struggling with. Thank you for the gentle reminder to consider another's perspective. As for BeenThere, my intention was to encourage a newbie and I personally wanted to see what else he was capable of. Your seeming to know who he is and not approving is good enough for me! On a side note, I also know Jim and his family (from the TN OK). It sounds like there are going to be changes here at TMM as you once again take the helm. I don't know much about you as you have been MIA (understandably so) for most of my 7 years here on the boards. However, I am willing to navigate new territory with you, your ideas and your hope. Best wishes!
Blessings, Moon
Well thank you Moon, and Blessings to you too. ;)
My apologies for being away for so long. Thank you for hanging in all that time. But get ready for some fun. We know what we're doing and we're going to empower a lot of people in the name of freedom and self-ownership.
I think it is great that you know Jim. I did not meet his wife, but he and I have a great dinner in SW Tennessee and I came away really respecting and appreciating him. Please send him my regards if you would. Thanks.
About how you were attempting to make BeenThere feel welcome, I sensed that you were trying to help a newbie and I had no problem with your gestures in his direction. I am proud of you for that, and also am proud of you for remembering to question everything. Like, as in, everything. So I thank you for being yourself, and hope you'll just keep right on being yourself. That will help TMM.
You'll do. ;)
Salute!
Elias
Been there or Been here, one could only imagine where we really are..... :laugh:
I have some information about what may have happened to oathkeepers.net/forum.
I used to be known as OKTXTech on the OK forum site. If anyone is interested I could expound on what I have found. I certainly don't wish to ruffle any feathers but, I deal in reality. All bullshit stops with me.
Anyone interested?
SS
Thanks for the offer, SS. And welcome aboard TMM's forums.
I am not really interested. It's an Oath Keepers problem, not a TMM problem. But perhaps Stewart and his I.T. guy would like to speak with you. Go to the Oath Keepers national website and use the "Contact" link. Address your offer to Stewart Rhodes and/or Larry D.
But thanks anyway.
Salute!
Elias
Now let me ask each of you please -- have you, each of you personally, gone to the national site and sent in your $25.00 annual dues to help me establish my own future income by helping me promote TMM?
Oh, man. Now I understand what this is all about. Cash flow. The bottom line is, the bottom line. Now I gotta decide whether I should feel pity, or disgust, or what. Thanks.
It is sad. It is disgusting. Knowing some of the folks involved personaly, it is downright heartbreaking.
Hi WWalker;
Long time no talk. I trust you and the family are well.
Am not sure what is "heartbreaking" for you, so will ask you to express more fully what you find to be heartbreaking about asking for help to get TMM going to the next level? You of course know that I respect your thinking on things, so I am just asking you in curiosity. I don't personally see anything I'm doing as "heartbreaking", so must ask if you were directing that at me (as well as whoever else) or not, and if so, I'd appreciate your take on it. Thanks!
Salute!
Elias
Now let me ask each of you please -- have you, each of you personally, gone to the national site and sent in your $25.00 annual dues to help me establish my own future income by helping me promote TMM?
Oh, man. Now I understand what this is all about. Cash flow. The bottom line is, the bottom line. Now I gotta decide whether I should feel pity, or disgust, or what. Thanks.
It is sad. It is disgusting. Knowing some of the folks involved personaly, it is downright heartbreaking.
Hi WWalker;
Long time no talk. I trust you and the family are well.
Am not sure what is "heartbreaking" for you, so will ask you to express more fully what you find to be heartbreaking about asking for help to get TMM going to the next level? You of course know that I respect your thinking on things, so I am just asking you in curiosity. I don't personally see anything I'm doing as "heartbreaking", so must ask if you were directing that at me (as well as whoever else) or not, and if so, I'd appreciate your take on it. Thanks!
Salute!
Elias
Elias,
Nice to see you active back a "home".
It is true that my short comment was not that clear. Time restraints and a mobile device...excuses excuses.
I do know it is difficult to make any money in your line of work. I see it everywhere in the "liberty movement". It brings to mind the L Ron Hubbard quote about not getting rich writing science fiction. You don't get rich fitting for freedom either.
I was not only referring to your desire for donations for TMM.
I was also contemplating one of the major pitfalls of the "Oathkeeper vision". And one specific comment you made further up the thread regarding your relation ship with Stewart and the Oathkeeper organization.
That being the NEED for folks to work for and fully support organization,s governmental or private, for a paycheck.
I could elaborate further...but once again...time constraints...I need to get to work.
And
Yes, we are well. I hope the same for you.
I see that he has lost interest in answering my question to him about "why" he is here at TMM's forums.
I see that he has lost interest in answering my question to him about "why" he is here at TMM's forums.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7BJ_vfGrbs
I see that he has lost interest in answering my question to him about "why" he is here at TMM's forums.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7BJ_vfGrbs
Good answer. Thank you. ;)
Salute!
Elias
It's just a very quick, three-second quip by Jack Benny, saying "I'm thinking it over." Opsec found a good use for it.
Salute!
Elias
The Oathkeepers "Forums" link now works, but the forums don't yet know their own new URL, so links from there don't work, though if you already have an account, that might work. I don't, so I couldn't try it.
Elias, I want to apologize for what I said. After re-reading and seeing what you said about monthly draw, its clearer to me now. I can see the whole thing a bit better I think. I know if I were involved in a conversation that had bad talk about my boss it would not be good. It don't matter what I think of him, because right now I need him more than he needs me. I still think the whole thing with Been There could of been handled better though. Maybe we can agree to disagree on that. Maybe Been There, if hes still around, sees things better too now. I would like to know if he does so maybe you can remove his posting ban and see what happens. You can still ban him from posting if it turns out to be a mistake.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7BJ_vfGrbs
;)
the forum page was operational this morning
I will get back to this soon.
Thanks,
Salute!
Elias
Censorship maybe?
Remember folks: when you "run your organization into the ground," your website will go with it.maybe it needs a cyber obiit and redirect
Remember folks: when you "run your organization into the ground," your website will go with it.
.
Oath Keepers is a privately held Nevada corporation. Its primary mission is to provide income for Rhodes. He screwed up and got disbarred from the practice of law, so OK is his only meal ticket. It may be that at the beginning, his passion was based on principles. He seems to have abandoned those principles, as he demonstrated by ignoring the oath he took when he became a lawyer. You can't be both an oath keeper and an oath breaker. OK will eventually be run into the ground, crash and burn, because of Rhodes.Klapton,
Oath Keepers is a privately held Nevada corporation. Its primary mission is to provide income for Rhodes. He screwed up and got disbarred from the practice of law, so OK is his only meal ticket. It may be that at the beginning, his passion was based on principles. He seems to have abandoned those principles, as he demonstrated by ignoring the oath he took when he became a lawyer. You can't be both an oath keeper and an oath breaker. OK will eventually be run into the ground, crash and burn, because of Rhodes.Klapton,
I don't think that Thucidydes understands the difference of what Stewart took an oath to, which is more monumental than that of an attorney's oath if any. The Oath that Stewart stands behind is that of protecting the Constitution.
Oath Keepers is a privately held Nevada corporation. Its primary mission is to provide income for Rhodes. He screwed up and got disbarred from the practice of law, so OK is his only meal ticket. It may be that at the beginning, his passion was based on principles. He seems to have abandoned those principles, as he demonstrated by ignoring the oath he took when he became a lawyer. You can't be both an oath keeper and an oath breaker. OK will eventually be run into the ground, crash and burn, because of Rhodes.Klapton,
I don't think that Thucidydes understands the difference of what Stewart took an oath to, which is more monumental than that of an attorney's oath if any. The Oath that Stewart stands behind is that of protecting the Constitution.
He's this guy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znQe9nUKzvQ
So, you're trying to say I'm Malcolm X, and you're Rhode's House Negro. Sounds about right.:sign10:
So, you're trying to say I'm Malcolm X, and you're Rhode's House Negro. Sounds about right.
Oath Keepers is a privately held Nevada corporation. Its primary mission is to provide income for Rhodes. He screwed up and got disbarred from the practice of law, so OK is his only meal ticket. It may be that at the beginning, his passion was based on principles. He seems to have abandoned those principles, as he demonstrated by ignoring the oath he took when he became a lawyer. You can't be both an oath keeper and an oath breaker. OK will eventually be run into the ground, crash and burn, because of Rhodes.Klapton,
I don't think that Thucidydes understands the difference of what Stewart took an oath to, which is more monumental than that of an attorney's oath if any. The Oath that Stewart stands behind is that of protecting the Constitution.
He's this guy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znQe9nUKzvQ
So, you're trying to say I'm Malcolm X, and you're Rhode's House Negro. Sounds about right.
You are either a lawyer or an LEO. You serve your master, the state. But you don't just serve your master, you love your master. Rhodes defied your masters and walked away. You are now embittered and furious that one of your fellow slaves left the plantation.
Re: oathkeepers.net
You are either a lawyer or an LEO. You serve your master, the state. But you don't just serve your master, you love your master. Rhodes defied your masters and walked away. You are now embittered and furious that one of your fellow slaves left the plantation.
Klapton... did you read the new rules for TMM? This is a personal attack. Regardless of whether or not you think it is true, it is not going to be tolerated here by Elias. Further attacks will earn you a time out... and I'm going to start deleting the posts pretty soon too. If anyone doesn't like it, they should ask Elias. Wasn't my idea, exactly. :(
So, have fun. Do what you think is right. Or not.
So, have fun. Do what you think is right. Or not.
That's exactly what I'm trying to do... and it isn't easy. :(
You have no obligation to defend Stewart, I think, with or without personal attacks. Could you perhaps mention the facts you dispute and, maybe, cite where better information can be found? The argument is probably at least part of what brings this person back, but I'm not aware of a problem with him. If you find someone who is doing troll stuff, please use the report feature and let me know. I don't normally monitor this section much at all, and would appreciate the help.
In deference to the requests to maintain decorum, I will refrain from responding to personal attacks. I don't know what he is ranting about, and don't care.Guess who else quit before being disbarred? Both Barrack and Michelle Obama. Don't believe me? Look it up. :mellow:
ArcLighter is correct. Rhodes was disbarred. Even if he said, in not so many words, "You can't fire me, I quit!" doesn't make it so.
Rhodes screwed up, big time. When called to explain himself, he whined about being persecuted, and refused to answer. That's not quitting, that's negligence.
Yeah, I'm also not obligated to hang out here either.
MamaLiberty and Elias,
Now I know calling someone a “lawyer" is certainly derogatory and an epithet and is about as vile a name as you can call someone, well except for “bootlicker”, UNLESS of course they are a lawyer (and by extension a bootlicker), which I don’t believe was ever denied.
I do believe in maintaining decorum here on TMM as you know but because the possible epithet’s were on the OK thread and because it was not proven that they were indeed untrue and whereas it was in defense of another TMM and OK member, is it possible to appeal such a decision or at least ask for a reduction in the sentence?
If so, I hereby and forthwith enter such an appeal. We are all sinners.
Tahn
P.S. I live in Missouri where the second worst epithet you can call someone is a scoundrel and (I hesitate to even say it) the WORST is a scalawag. I heard no such vile utterances and also heard no real cuss words. Allowing the two combatants to duel, on that thread, concerning their perceived matter of honor, might be the best, libertarian method to help them reach a satisfactory conclusion or at least, expend their ammo. Regardless, withdrawing only ONE of the combatants I perceive as unsatisfactory.
Of course, this decision is not mine, thank the heavens and I will truly respect any decision you’all make
Stewart walked away prior to being disbarred. That means the disbarment was a result of his quitting not the other way around.
I'm sorry it left clients without council, that could have been handled better.
This is why you see a growth of the Private Attorney Generals and 14th Amendment Bounty Hunters. Do you even know what those are? Now the we have discovered the proper jurisdiction and venue to hold public officials accountable for their crimes we will be educating more. Every LEO, Attorney and Judge is guilty.
As to Attorneys, they are all criminals the way I see it.
Pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute: “The State citizen is immune from any and all government attacks and procedure”. Dred Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 19 How. 393. The Supreme Court has stated clearly:“...every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen [fellowman] without his consent.” Cruden v. Neale, 2 N.C. 338 2 S.E. 70.
This is why you see a growth of the Private Attorney Generals and 14th Amendment Bounty Hunters. Do you even know what those are?
Now the we have discovered the proper jurisdiction and venue to hold public officials accountable for their crimes we will be educating more.
Every LEO, Attorney and Judge is guilty.
Third.
I stand with Tahn in klapton"s appeal.
This is why you see a growth of the Private Attorney Generals and 14th Amendment Bounty Hunters. Do you even know what those are? Now the we have discovered the proper jurisdiction and venue to hold public officials accountable for their crimes we will be educating more. Every LEO, Attorney and Judge is guilty.
Barrett. I do not know of these concepts. Could you give a link where I might inform myself?
Every LEO, Attorney and Judge is guilty.
You cut no slack even for oath keepers who are still employed as LEO's ? For attorneys like those at the Institute for Justice?
A broad brush indeed.
Third.
I stand with Tahn in klapton"s appeal.
Third.
I stand with Tahn in klapton"s appeal.
Here's the problem... if I let someone - anyone - continue with name calling and attacks I'm accused of "coddling" that person. If I attempt to nip it in the bud (new policy), I'm a nasty censor... As I've said so many times, I can't win. Many folks are happy to harp back to when the policy was not enforced well... or at all sometimes. Nobody liked that except the habitual name callers and those who enjoyed the resulting nasty arguments, of course.
This is not a democracy, and I can only follow the policy I've been given. Anyone who really can't stand it... is welcome to the job. Subject to the approval of Elias, of course. Ask him...
LEOs are a disease.
LEO's are a symptom of the disease "mala prohibita".
Stewart made the news... Calling for militias to attack Black Lives Matter activists... Brilliant, start a race war, that'll give you freedom.
I found this- https://www.oathkeepers.org/call-to-action/Stewart made the news... Calling for militias to attack Black Lives Matter activists... Brilliant, start a race war, that'll give you freedom.
Have a link please?
I'm going to make a more literal guess.Oath Keepers is a privately held Nevada corporation. Its primary mission is to provide income for Rhodes. He screwed up and got disbarred from the practice of law, so OK is his only meal ticket. It may be that at the beginning, his passion was based on principles. He seems to have abandoned those principles, as he demonstrated by ignoring the oath he took when he became a lawyer. You can't be both an oath keeper and an oath breaker. OK will eventually be run into the ground, crash and burn, because of Rhodes.Klapton,
I don't think that Thucidydes understands the difference of what Stewart took an oath to, which is more monumental than that of an attorney's oath if any. The Oath that Stewart stands behind is that of protecting the Constitution.
He's this guy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znQe9nUKzvQ
.
Stewart made the news... Calling for militias to attack Black Lives Matter activists... Brilliant, start a race war, that'll give you freedom.
Stewart made the news... Calling for militias to attack Black Lives Matter activists... Brilliant, start a race war, that'll give you freedom.
Thank you for the link DL.
Baked,
I certainly do not see a call out to "express sympathy or deliver flowers to the families of fallen officers" as anything but an act of kindness.
Nor do I see volunteering " to physically step up, in your community, and stand united with your local police and your brother veterans to stand vigilant in mutual defense and defense of your community against any acts of terrorism, by any foe, be they hate filled racist cop killers or hate filled Islamic terrorists" as “calling for militias to attack Black Lives Matter activists” as you stated.
You have totally misrepresented his statements, if this is what you were referring to. Why are you constantly agitating for violence and discord?
Stewart made the news... Calling for militias to attack Black Lives Matter activists... Brilliant, start a race war, that'll give you freedom.
Thank you for the link DL.
Baked,
I certainly do not see a call out to "express sympathy or deliver flowers to the families of fallen officers" as anything but an act of kindness.
Nor do I see volunteering " to physically step up, in your community, and stand united with your local police and your brother veterans to stand vigilant in mutual defense and defense of your community against any acts of terrorism, by any foe, be they hate filled racist cop killers or hate filled Islamic terrorists" as “calling for militias to attack Black Lives Matter activists” as you stated.
You have totally misrepresented his statements, if this is what you were referring to. Why are you constantly agitating for violence and discord?
Maybe his hatred for the JBT's is a little higher than most here.
why is your love for them so high?
The biggest reason I do not hate, is it diminishes me.
Tahn L,ZAP
I have always followed my path with those elements, but have never seen it labeled, ZAP. You have some fine words up there.
Well . . . I didn't think of it that way, especially the gal driving the car. It appears her head lights are on. I was thinking about Zero Aggression People (ZAP).:laugh: He knows that. Just being his usual self. :thrbiggrin:
Stewart made the news... Calling for militias to attack Black Lives Matter activists... Brilliant, start a race war, that'll give you freedom.
Thank you for the link DL.
Baked,
I certainly do not see a call out to "express sympathy or deliver flowers to the families of fallen officers" as anything but an act of kindness.
Nor do I see volunteering " to physically step up, in your community, and stand united with your local police and your brother veterans to stand vigilant in mutual defense and defense of your community against any acts of terrorism, by any foe, be they hate filled racist cop killers or hate filled Islamic terrorists" as “calling for militias to attack Black Lives Matter activists” as you stated.
You have totally misrepresented his statements, if this is what you were referring to. Why are you constantly agitating for violence and discord?
I was thinking about Zero Aggression People (ZAP).I hope you didn't forget to chant the mantra:
:rolleyes: Your source is blatantly biased. Twisting every single word for all it's worth.Stewart made the news... Calling for militias to attack Black Lives Matter activists... Brilliant, start a race war, that'll give you freedom.
Thank you for the link DL.
Baked,
I certainly do not see a call out to "express sympathy or deliver flowers to the families of fallen officers" as anything but an act of kindness.
Nor do I see volunteering " to physically step up, in your community, and stand united with your local police and your brother veterans to stand vigilant in mutual defense and defense of your community against any acts of terrorism, by any foe, be they hate filled racist cop killers or hate filled Islamic terrorists" as “calling for militias to attack Black Lives Matter activists” as you stated.
You have totally misrepresented his statements, if this is what you were referring to. Why are you constantly agitating for violence and discord?
https://www.rawstory.com/2016/07/oath-keepers-group-calls-for-armed-struggle-against-marxists-in-bonkers-reaction-to-dallas-shootings/
Hmmmph......No reply to this. I must be right. Or close! :laugh:I'm going to make a more literal guess.Oath Keepers is a privately held Nevada corporation. Its primary mission is to provide income for Rhodes. He screwed up and got disbarred from the practice of law, so OK is his only meal ticket. It may be that at the beginning, his passion was based on principles. He seems to have abandoned those principles, as he demonstrated by ignoring the oath he took when he became a lawyer. You can't be both an oath keeper and an oath breaker. OK will eventually be run into the ground, crash and burn, because of Rhodes.Klapton,
I don't think that Thucidydes understands the difference of what Stewart took an oath to, which is more monumental than that of an attorney's oath if any. The Oath that Stewart stands behind is that of protecting the Constitution.
He's this guy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znQe9nUKzvQ
.
He's this guy- http://thepetesantillishow.com/author/petesantillishow/
Or a close associate.
www.oathkeepers.org is finally working again today via Comcast from southern Vermont. Don't know what changed.
Yeah, I'm also not obligated to hang out here either.
Your choice. I do have an obligation to Elias, and the rest of TMM... and I have the authority to carry it out. Attacking Elias was possibly not your best decision today. 7 day time out...
"Attacking Elias." Apparently, anything remotely critical is now "attacking." This description of what I said about Elias is laughable. I guess the maternal exhortation that, "If you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all" is now law here. Oh well. The spirited discussion that made this place great in the past will not happen again here if this is the kind of environment he is trying to achieve.
You have totally misrepresented his statements, if this is what you were referring to. Why are you constantly agitating for violence and discord?
https://www.rawstory.com/2016/07/oath-keepers-group-calls-for-armed-struggle-against-marxists-in-bonkers-reaction-to-dallas-shootings/
Essentially, Rhodes is saying
There is absolutely no way to please everyone, especially in a situation like a forum. So the person we need to please, more or less, is the guy that gives us the forum as a platform to discuss anything at all. If you can't handle that... well, what can I tell you?
Oath Keepers forum appears to be down again. Time for a "new" poster to show up in this thread and tell us how naughty Stewart is.:laugh: :rolleyes: :dnftt:
.