Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[da gooch]

Well, so this is my first post around here and at the risk of being accused of being a replacement account for that other guy...

I agree the guy was being a bonehead if for no other reason than it was clear people were not looking to discuss what he was discussing.

Because it is NOT a goal of Oath Keepers to foment rebellion.

But at the same time it seems strange that there is a need for so much fear about our Government just for asking people to support an oath they took.

I am not sure I understand this sentence.

I don't understand what "need for ... fear" and/or whose "need for ... fear" you are referring to ?

[MacCoinneach]

Their "slam" our "dunk"! 

and the SPLC loses the game.

Oath Keepers has officially been targeted by hatemongers.  It will only be to our benefit.  Thanks SPLC...thank you very much.

[PatriotsWrath]

Well, so this is my first post around here and at the risk of being accused of being a replacement account for that other guy...

I agree the guy was being a bonehead if for no other reason than it was clear people were not looking to discuss what he was discussing.

Because it is NOT a goal of Oath Keepers to foment rebellion.

But at the same time it seems strange that there is a need for so much fear about our Government just for asking people to support an oath they took.

I am not sure I understand this sentence.

I don't understand what "need for ... fear" and/or whose "need for ... fear" you are referring to ?

Okay, so at the risk of potentially annoying some people I will do my best to explain what I was trying to say.  At the same time it is not my intent to annoy anyone.

Perhaps I was not following the thread accurately, I did read through it quickly so that is possible.  I understand completely that it is not a goal of Oathkeepers to foment rebellion.  Then again I don't believe you can actually foment rebellion by demanding that Government act in a lawful fashion and remain constrained to the bounds placed upon it by and at its creation.  I think the other guy in an unfortunately combative manner was trying to get at some of the same points that I'm thinking about.  But he was belligerent and unproductive in his approach.

Perhaps a question is the best way to address part of this point.

Assuming those who serve and protect the People swear an oath and then reaffirm that oath, sticking to the list of things that will and won't be done.  What do you do when you are asked to do the things you won't do?  Obviously you are not going to do them, but what do you do about all those who will do them?  I'm sure there are many reasons why those that will do whatever is asked of them will do it, fear, rationalization, etc.  Rationalization being the biggest enemy.  After all should such an event come to pass there will be a great deal of propaganda employed to shift stories to a reasonable explanation as to why the Government is asking the military or law enforcement to do the things on the will not do list.  Simply refusing to participate may not be enough. If others are going to go ahead and do those things, then someone also has to stop them.

As for my fear comment as I read through the thread it just seemed like there was an almost tangible amount of fear around anything that even at a wild extreme could be construed as seditious.  The Government at any given time will not see its actions as wrong.  One must assume if they did they would not do whatever it is because they saw it as wrong.  Instead it will be rationalized and twisted to seem right, though it violates the Constitution and the principles this country is founded on.  From that definition and when seen clearly it could be defined as wrong.  However given that the Government will not see its actions as wrong.  Refusing to follow those orders or worse acting to stop others from following those orders, which would be mandated by the oath, to protect and defend...  will then be seen as a seditious act.  You and I might know that it is not, because it complies with the oath and is supported by the Constitution.  In the end though, a monopoly of force and title dictates what is seditious.

If fear of that label is to be as a toxin which causes paralysis, then there would be no way to actually maintain the oath.

I don't know that in the end this made what I was trying to say and ask any more clear... But I am hopeful that it did.

[Undefined]

Is there any interest/intention to draft a response to the SPLC? Preferably in the form of an open letter?

If so, I volunteer my services. I am both southern and poor.

[da gooch]

Is there any interest/intention to draft a response to the SPLC? Preferably in the form of an open letter?

If so, I volunteer my services. I am both southern and poor.

Please do George Please do.

Write it up and send it to Stewart [or Elias or myself ] and it will more than likely wind up on the website.

Stewart is writing one, Sheriff Mack has already written one and it is currently up on the website.

We will welcome your erudite offerings most gladly.

Keep in mind we agree with  Mike V. at the Sipsey Street Irregulars [dotblogspotdotcom]  who says  "No Fort Sumters".


Thank you,

gooch

[CorbinKale]

I don't know that in the end this made what I was trying to say and ask any more clear... But I am hopeful that it did.

There may be a time when honoring the Oath is considered sedition, but that time has not yet come. We are anticipating such an occurance and attempting to head it off. We are still able to do this within current constraints. By crossing a line that invites the government to 'legally' infringe upon our 1st Amendment Rights, we would be forced into resorting to other methods. We choose to, peacefully, educate and inspire loyalty to the Constitution, so that those other methods are never required.

If one requires a group that is less scrupulous of the law, there are plenty available. That is not Oath Keepers, though. Our mission is narrowly defined, and we resist efforts to broaden, or redefine it.

[da gooch]

I see CorbinKale has answered your question before me but I will post my response as well.

Okay, so at the risk of potentially annoying some people I will do my best to explain what I was trying to say.  At the same time it is not my intent to annoy anyone.

Perhaps I was not following the thread accurately, I did read through it quickly so that is possible.  I understand completely that it is not a goal of Oathkeepers to foment rebellion.  Then again I don't believe you can actually foment rebellion by demanding that Government act in a lawful fashion and remain constrained to the bounds placed upon it by and at its creation.  I think the other guy in an unfortunately combative manner was trying to get at some of the same points that I'm thinking about.  But he was belligerent and unproductive in his approach.

As well as totally off base in his understanding of our goals in spite of having them explained numerous times as you saw if you read up to this point.

Perhaps a question is the best way to address part of this point.

Assuming those who serve and protect the People swear an oath and then reaffirm that oath, sticking to the list of things that will and won't be done.  What do you do when you are asked to do the things you won't do?  Obviously you are not going to do them, but what do you do about all those who will do them?  I'm sure there are many reasons why those that will do whatever is asked of them will do it, fear, rationalization, etc.  Rationalization being the biggest enemy.  After all should such an event come to pass there will be a great deal of propaganda employed to shift stories to a reasonable explanation as to why the Government is asking the military or law enforcement to do the things on the will not do list.  Simply refusing to participate may not be enough. If others are going to go ahead and do those things, then someone also has to stop them.

And when that time comes what happens happens.  You see ...
Discussing any sort of action that might even possibly express the intention of violence in any form against an agent of any government is pure plain sedition and we are not about sedition. We are about educating those agents and having them refuse to follow the order to "whatever it is you are envisioning".

oxi refused to take "I won't discuss it in public" for an answer.   Will you ?

As for my fear comment as I read through the thread it just seemed like there was an almost tangible amount of fear around anything that even at a wild extreme could be construed as seditious.  The Government at any given time will not see its actions as wrong.  One must assume if they did they would not do whatever it is because they saw it as wrong.  Instead it will be rationalized and twisted to seem right, though it violates the Constitution and the principles this country is founded on.  From that definition and when seen clearly it could be defined as wrong.  However given that the Government will not see its actions as wrong.  Refusing to follow those orders or worse acting to stop others from following those orders, which would be mandated by the oath, to protect and defend...  will then be seen as a seditious act.  You and I might know that it is not, because it complies with the oath and is supported by the Constitution.  In the end though, a monopoly of force and title dictates what is seditious.

Our refusal to commit sedition or any other felonious act should not be confused with "fear".

Would you say that not stepping out into traffic against the light [while flowing traffic is present] was fear or common sense self preservation ?

We have no fear of "the Government" because as Pogo so clearly put it "We have met the enemy and he is us."

Oath Keepers fully intends to reach out to and educate all of the oath takers and inspire them to become Oath Keepers.
If every oath taker became an Oath Keeper there would be very little chance of unlawful orders being issued because all government employees swear to support and defend the Constitution so who would issue the unlawful order ?
No violence or sedition needed .... or wanted.

If fear of that label is to be as a toxin which causes paralysis, then there would be no way to actually maintain the oath.

I don't know that in the end this made what I was trying to say and ask any more clear... But I am hopeful that it did.

And I hope that I have answered your question.

captgooch

[PatriotsWrath]

gooch - CorbinKale


Thank you both for your responses.  That was essentially the question.  Is it a dance we engage in carefully planned to not break toes or are we playing house?  I am satisfied with the answer in that all seem to understand the importance of that which faces us and none of us needs broken toes.

gooch, I noted the subtle "Will You?" which I assume was a thinly veiled threat or perhaps an intent to bait me?  Either way have no fear neither is required.  I hope you noted I wrote my previous response carefully, or at least intended to.  I have absolute respect for dead horses and believe they should be buried not beaten.   

CorbinKale, a very compact answer that said it all well.

Thank you both for taking the time to respond.

[da gooch]

gooch - CorbinKale


Thank you both for your responses.  That was essentially the question.  Is it a dance we engage in carefully planned to not break toes or are we playing house?  I am satisfied with the answer in that all seem to understand the importance of that which faces us and none of us needs broken toes.

gooch, I noted the subtle "Will You?" which I assume was a thinly veiled threat or perhaps an intent to bait me?  Either way have no fear neither is required.  I hope you noted I wrote my previous response carefully, or at least intended to.  I have absolute respect for dead horses and believe they should be buried not beaten.   

CorbinKale, a very compact answer that said it all well.

Thank you both for taking the time to respond.

emphasis mine

No sir.  Neither one of those two choices.
It is yet another option that I intended.
It was meant as a plain straight forward question.

oxi refused to take "I won't discuss it in public" for an answer.   Will you ? could also have been written as ...
"Will you accept "I won't discuss it in public." as an answer to your question "what do {we} intend to do about ...." ? " and I probably should have worded it that way.

oxi apparently never saw that option and therefore would not accept our answer as what it is.
He-she felt the need to label our response as "fear" or "cowardice" or some other thing which it is not.

I was not attempting to be "subtle" [I'm not at all good at subtle] I was asking a question.
Which you have answered. Thank You.

Welcome Aboard.

OH and we do have a   thingie in case you have need of it ....

[da gooch]

Their "slam" our "dunk"! 

and the SPLC loses the game.

Oath Keepers has officially been targeted by hatemongers.  It will only be to our benefit.  Thanks SPLC...thank you very much.

I agree completely MacCoinneach.

My only concern is that so many Americans don't think for themselves and therefore any Public Statement that agrees with the talking heads on the propaganda tube they will take as Truth.
"They can't put it on TV if it isn't the Truth.   Right ?"      *sigh*

And keep in mind that the administration uses the SPLC as a "real" resource for intel.  That part is really scary to me. 

[MacCoinneach]

Their "slam" our "dunk"! 

and the SPLC loses the game.

Oath Keepers has officially been targeted by hatemongers.  It will only be to our benefit.  Thanks SPLC...thank you very much.

I agree completely MacCoinneach.

My only concern is that so many Americans don't think for themselves and therefore any Public Statement that agrees with the talking heads on the propaganda tube they will take as Truth.
"They can't put it on TV if it isn't the Truth.   Right ?"      *sigh*

And keep in mind that the administration uses the SPLC as a "real" resource for intel.  That part is really scary to me. 

It is my concern as well.  Based on communicating with the populace, many do NOT think for themselves.  They believe absolutely everything that comes out of the "propaganda" tube and into their minds.  I call these people lemmings, because lemmings do not think for themselves at all.  They know only what the leader tells them and do what the leader tells them to do...period.  It is funny, well, not really, but many of these people actually believe they are independent thinkers.  What a shame it is to see the blind leading the blind.  The only way to snap them out of it is to get them to ask questions.  Once they start asking questions and those who should give them the answers don't; that seems to spark the awakening.

But you already know what I am talking about.  No need to go any further.

It is scary that the government looks upon the SPLC as a "real" resource of intel.  It may be scary, but should we be surprised since there is such an extreme disconnect between those in our government and we the people?  Nah.  We should expect it.  They have god complexes.  They truly believe that they know best for the American people!!  What a shame.  And what a shame it is that the American people have allowed it to happen.

Thus the reason Oath Keepers is so important and why I am a member of this honorable association.

[Elias Alias]

It is scary that the government looks upon the SPLC as a "real" resource of intel. 

Amen to that! I may yet do a piece on the SPLC, but at the moment I'm focusing my interest on their little-brother here in Montana, the Montana Human Rights Network. Sheesh, this local version of SPLC is astonishingly mis-directed in its perception. I called into a local talk-radio show this week and challenged the MHRN to debate me publicly. I will follow up on that by corresponding with MHRN directly. Their "concern" about Oath Keepers shall be catapulted into the public arena, and once again I'll use the MHRN and SPLC to enlist more new members into Oath Keepers. The more the MHRN attacks Oath Keepers, the greater our appeal to the public. Montanans are waking up in droves right now, and Montanans, by and large, love Oath Keepers. The more the MHRN and SPLC attempt to demonize Oath Keepers, the more they swell our ranks. I love it.

Salute!
Elias

[Elias Alias]

  Simply refusing to participate may not be enough. If others are going to go ahead and do those things, then someone also has to stop them.

Welcome aboard, PatriotsWrath. The two sentences of yours which I've quoted above caused me to blink when I read them. Please allow me to elucidate the error for your better understanding.

Oath Keepers is asking Oath Takers to be Oath Keepers. It is not asking Oath Keepers to make sure others keep their oaths - we are only asking each person, individually, to honor his/her oath to the U.S. Constitution. We are not asking any Oath Keeper to make sure anyone else keeps his/her oath. Oath Keepers believes in personal responsibility. The individual is responsible for his own actions and no one else's. Oath Keepers remains focused on the individual Oath Taker's willingness to understand and honor his/her oath. Oath Keepers does not imply, suggest, or require of any individual Oath Keeper that he "do" anything to "force" any other individual to honor that oath. Oath Keepers does not condone coercion, does not require any Oath Keeper to mind the business of any other individual. No one is required to make sure anyone else keeps his/her oath. To require that would be the endorsement of coercion, and Oath Keepers does not endorse coercion. Each Oath Keeper is responsible only to himself, same as is any Oath Taker.

The following paragraph is not directed at you personally, but I'm including it here for the benefit of other readers. Please don't take this personally, okay? Thanks!

Everyone who tries to come in here and motivate Oath Keepers to advocate any particular course of action other than the mission of Oath Keepers, which is to inspire and educate all Oath Takers to become Oath Keepers, is attempting to do the impossible. Oath Keepers' leadership is extremely intelligent, experienced, educated, dedicated, and knowledgeable. We are well-versed in the struggle for liberty, and we are well versed in the tactics of the enemies of liberty, such as the misguided employees at MHRN and SPLC. Subtle or overt attempts to align Oath Keepers with any position, philosophy, policy, process, or purpose other than our simple mission statement shall be exposed quickly and disposed of properly.

Salute!
Elias

[Cache Creek]

I'm all for allowing people to debate and have differences of opinion but you guys dealing with Oxi is somewhat similar to me dealing with my delusional/paranoid brother.  You say (for example) "A,B,C", he says "Yeah but 'P".  You say "No, I said A,B,C".  He says "So what your saying is V".  And so on and on. 
Without meds my brother can keep this type of conversation up for hours in the face of any fact I say or show.  With meds he just gets tired of the conversation as fast as I do. 

Good luck if you persist in trying to show him the facts.

[PatriotsWrath]

  Simply refusing to participate may not be enough. If others are going to go ahead and do those things, then someone also has to stop them.

Welcome aboard, PatriotsWrath. The two sentences of yours which I've quoted above caused me to blink when I read them. Please allow me to elucidate the error for your better understanding.

Oath Keepers is asking Oath Takers to be Oath Keepers. It is not asking Oath Keepers to make sure others keep their oaths - we are only asking each person, individually, to honor his/her oath to the U.S. Constitution. We are not asking any Oath Keeper to make sure anyone else keeps his/her oath. Oath Keepers believes in personal responsibility. The individual is responsible for his own actions and no one else's. Oath Keepers remains focused on the individual Oath Taker's willingness to understand and honor his/her oath. Oath Keepers does not imply, suggest, or require of any individual Oath Keeper that he "do" anything to "force" any other individual to honor that oath. Oath Keepers does not condone coercion, does not require any Oath Keeper to mind the business of any other individual. No one is required to make sure anyone else keeps his/her oath. To require that would be the endorsement of coercion, and Oath Keepers does not endorse coercion. Each Oath Keeper is responsible only to himself, same as is any Oath Taker.

The following paragraph is not directed at you personally, but I'm including it here for the benefit of other readers. Please don't take this personally, okay? Thanks!

Everyone who tries to come in here and motivate Oath Keepers to advocate any particular course of action other than the mission of Oath Keepers, which is to inspire and educate all Oath Takers to become Oath Keepers, is attempting to do the impossible. Oath Keepers' leadership is extremely intelligent, experienced, educated, dedicated, and knowledgeable. We are well-versed in the struggle for liberty, and we are well versed in the tactics of the enemies of liberty, such as the misguided employees at MHRN and SPLC. Subtle or overt attempts to align Oath Keepers with any position, philosophy, policy, process, or purpose other than our simple mission statement shall be exposed quickly and disposed of properly.

Salute!
Elias

I sent a PM to you and to gooch.  I think you have misunderstood my statemet, either way it's something I struggle with so... Perhaps after reading the PM you can help.