Print

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

[jamie]

I've said before that too many Oath Keeper's simply reek of hypocrisy.  Present company excepted, Gooch!

Thanks ... I think.

While I can forgive a young, brainwashed person from not understanding the moral implications of their career choices, and not knowing where their money comes from, once they spend any time in one of the many sandboxes the slack gets reeled back in.  It is simply impossible to be a member of an occupation army for any length of time and not see the corruption and violence inherent in the job.

But the failings are much greater than that.  The Oath Keepers have been extremely selective in reminding their members of their oaths.

OK Board member Chief Celia S. Hyde was a high officer in the MA state police.  She swore a mighty oath not to disarm citizens,  then went out herself or oversaw officers who went out and enforced a MA law that will put a citizen in jail for 10 long years if they don't lock their firearm when stored at home, rendering it useless.  Is she not open to charges of blatant hypocrisy?  How does she reconcile her oath to honor the right to bear arms with enforcement of a law that demands the each and every citizen get advance approval from the police not only to carry a weapon, but simply to own one at all, even if it never leaves the home?  A law the enforces registration of all firearms and records of all ammunition purchases?  Does the fact that she has retired change her responsibility in this area?  Will she make a public statement to the effect that no OK who is a MA police officer should enforce this draconian, unconstitutional, victim-disarming law?

Think about the lock-down of the city of Boston after the Marathon bombing.  Warrantless house to house searches.  Innocent people forced from their homes at gunpoint by heavily armed storm troopers. Where where the Oath Keepers?  Were there none at all in the multiple police forces, hundreds if not thousands of officers, involved in that grotesque orgy of violating constitutional and human rights?  I rather suspect there were Oath Keepers in that number, and it appears that they were silent.

Are you aware that she and two other (both also cops) National Board of Directors members were removed from the Board and "drummed out" of the organization for pretty much the things you describe? And within a year of the formation of the organization ... if memory serves.

Where where these folks 2001-2008? 

When did Oath Keepers come in to being ? ( right here at TMM btw )

Have you spent any time or made any exertion in researching the organization beyond the search for examples of "faults" with which to crucify the organization? - - - 2009 February actually but 2009 March Officially in case you wondered.

Where where they when we invaded a foreign country and murdered half a million people?  Where where they when W was wiretapping literally everyone?  I could ask these questions and many more but I know I won't get an answer.  It was OK when the party that favors war and violence was in charge, but now that the party that prefers welfare and violence is in power, the enforcers are antsy. 

Here the assumption is that every person who has taken the oath is an Oath Keeper. Nope.

Some argue that we should embrace those who are beginning to realize what is going on.  I'll embrace any one of them - after they quit their job and find a way to make a living that doesn't involve taking taxpayer loot or killing people as SOP.

So in your universe there is no hope of redemption of a wayward person who was duped into serving to follow a "family tradition" or patriotic speeches by family, peers and friends? That's sad.

From their website:

We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people

unless it's TSA shakedowns at airports and bus stations, random searches at subway stations, drug dogs and property confiscation at checkpoints or traffic stops, or warrantless wiretaps of the entire nation.

In the act of committing those acts the oath TAKER violates his/her oath and therefore Cannot Be an Oath Keeper.  ALL WHO TAKE THE OATH ARE NOT OATH KEEPERS. Any more than all religions are evil, all men are domineering a-holes or all women are greedy beetches. "Common Sense is altogether too uncommon." B. Franklin

We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as "unlawful enemy combatants" or to subject them to military tribunal.

Ever hear of Jose Padilla?  American citizen.  Detained as unlawful enemy combatant.  Tortured into deep psychosis by the US Navy.  Too late for oathkeepers.

See note above about who is or is not an Oath Keeper.

We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a "state of emergency" on a state.

  Unless that state has people who look different and speak a different language.  Then we'll come in like gangbusters, literally shooting everything that moves.

This question(?) and the next few make the assumption that the Oath Keepers was created to educate the entire planet. HARDLY.
OK was formed to attempt to educate those AMERICAN  "young, brainwashed persons" into their responsibility to obey the Oath, the UCMJ and to deeply evaluate their actions concerning the Rights of others especially following the Bill of Rights. We hoped, at the time, to be able to educate enough of the currently serving military and some few of the cops that the outrageous violations of rights, especially the physical violence, would decline or stop altogether. We were only partially successful and yet the "attempt" continues unabated.

We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.

Unless the state is named Iraq, or Afganistan, or Serbia, or Iran, or Syria, or Libya, or Yemen, or....

We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.

Unless that property is money to pay for Oathkeepers salaries, health plans, retirement benefits, and high-tech weapons.  Then it's OK.

This question makes the assumption that anyone who enters the military or police force can instantly change the things that are and have been policy for generations by simply reaching out and throwing some kind of switch. See Franklin quote above.

We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

  Except when it's W, the G20, or any other VIP, and the orders are to force protestors into pens called "free speech zones."  Or if the free speech happens to be a blog highlighting the criminal activities of the enforcers.  Then anything goes.

See response above.

Give me a break.  These people picked jobs where they can beat and kill others.  They are good at what they do.  They will keep doing it. When push comes to shove, they will do what enforcers have always done - beat and kill for whomever is paying them.

This is one of the main reasons that OK has a much smaller number of LEOs than of vets and currently serving military. BUT that bit of knowledge would cost a person a little actual research of the subject which doesn't seem to be the pattern that is shining out here.

Modern war and oppression are carried out by a long chain of individuals, each doing his or her job meticulously while simultaneously refusing to look at the end results of his or her work. There is no state or corporate evil that is not the result of personal sinfulness.

Rev. Emmanuel Charles McCarthy

To the extent that the Oathkeepers are an association of currently serving military, police, and firefighters then their ranks are filled with soldiers occupying foreign nations or militarized enforcers occupying American cities and towns.

Here again the assumption that every person who has taken the oath is an Oath Keeper.

  Each and every one does their job meticulously.  Their true allegiance is to their comrades, not to the constitution, which one commander that the OK's happily obeyed correctly characterized a "just a goddamned peace of paper."

Here again the assumption that every person who has taken the oath is an Oath Keeper.

To expect people who must twist their moral compass off its hinges in order to make their daily bread to suddenly develop a functioning conscience when there is blood in the streets is folly.  When the Catholics under Father McCarthy's care were ordered to murder hundreds of thousands of women and children, including entire convents of Catholic nuns, neither they nor their chaplain objected.  Only after he had walked through the rubble and confronted the results of his own actions did he realize his errors.

Here again the assumption that every person who has taken the oath is an Oath Keeper.

It was the same after the Boston Marathon bombing. There were no reports of cops refusing to roust citizens from their homes in Boston.

Oathkeepers will swear their mighty oaths, but they will still drop the bombs, rape the children, shoot the women, burn the villages, steal the money, take the guns, confiscate the hoarded food, and above all else obey their orders and support their comrades.

Here again the assumption that every person who has taken the oath is an Oath Keeper.

Perhaps a few will realize in hindsight the enormity of their crimes.  But any that presently possess the intellect and self-awarness to contemplate the utter immorality of their actions have already laid down their arms and walked away from the madness.

Not a few of which are here at TMM and among them the few who started OK.

To the extent that Oath Keepers really does raise awareness among its members, success can be measured by how many resign their commissions and seek honest employment.

My criticisms of the Oath Keepers are not about the concept, but about the Oath itself and how it is described and explained by the Oath Keepers.  A group of people who swear oaths that they immediately and repeatedly violate already infests Mordor on the Potomac.  We don't need more recruits to that particular army.


Peace,

Silver

It is amazing to me that otherwise intelligent people will castigate an entire group to exercize their emotions over an issue that they have not researched beyond the bits and pieces chosen to frame the image as they Feel it is rather than find out what it is actually.

Without having any access to the minds of the thousands currently serving, without being inside the military and police forces, how would You begin to educate those people who obviously need reeducation on freedom and personal Rights?

By all means PLEASE start your own effort to stop the madness.

And please stop denigrating those who are trying to stop the madness in the only way that we thought at the time will actually work without starting the American Revolution II.

Very nicely done Gooch. Sometimes the sheer hate and irrationality gets thick around here.

The idea itself is sound. For 12 or so people who could actually work together.

Stewart Rhodes has tried to do something significant and I salute him for that.  There will always be people who try to drag everything and everyone down.

[slidemansailor]

The elites even have full-time staffs whose job it is to disrupt and drag down anything useful.  To think they aren't here is foolish. Most of us are smart enough to recognize drones, trolls and individuals who are negative by nature for what they are... an impediment to intelligent discussion. They are not, however, going to prevent such intercourse unless we let them.

[Klapton Isgod]

There will always be someone trying to stop people from having intercourse.

[Silver]

Are you aware that she and two other (both also cops) National Board of Directors members were removed from the Board and "drummed out" of the organization for pretty much the things you describe? And within a year of the formation of the organization ... if memory serves.

No I was not.  I raised this point some years ago and no one responded to it.  That's good news, and a good response.

When did Oath Keepers come in to being ? ( right here at TMM btw )

Have you spent any time or made any exertion in researching the organization beyond the search for examples of "faults" with which to crucify the organization? - - - 2009 February actually but 2009 March Officially in case you wondered.

I have done some research, but I missed that.  I was under the impression the organization was several years older, and that TMM was simply an announcement. 

Another good point, I withdraw all criticisms about events before 2009.

So in your universe there is no hope of redemption of a wayward person who was duped into serving to follow a "family tradition" or patriotic speeches by family, peers and friends? That's sad.

There is always hope of redemption.  Quit the job and walk away.  You did it, Elias did it, Stewart did it, more than I can count have done it.  I've marched beside vets whose eyes were opened, even at the expense of losing limbs.

Family tradition and patriotic speeches are good reasons why young, impressionable people might join these organizations.  But once they see with their own eyes the realities of the job, they have a choice.  Either develop a self-serving us versus them moral code that excuses all actions, up to and including summary execution, or resign and walk away.

What I don't believe in, and can't trust, is that someone whose day job involves throwing young men against the wall, in whatever country, can be redeemed even as teeth meet stone.  That's a contradiction I can't tolerate.

In the act of committing those acts the oath TAKER violates his/her oath and therefore Cannot Be an Oath Keeper.  ALL WHO TAKE THE OATH ARE NOT OATH KEEPERS. Any more than all religions are evil, all men are domineering a-holes or all women are greedy beetches. "Common Sense is altogether too uncommon." B. Franklin

I realize that all who take the oath are not Oath Keepers.  My criticism is of Oath Keepers who participate in those activities, or condone it with activities like back-up and silence.

This question(?) and the next few make the assumption that the Oath Keepers was created to educate the entire planet. HARDLY.
OK was formed to attempt to educate those AMERICAN  "young, brainwashed persons" into their responsibility to obey the Oath, the UCMJ and to deeply evaluate their actions concerning the Rights of others especially following the Bill of Rights. We hoped, at the time, to be able to educate enough of the currently serving military and some few of the cops that the outrageous violations of rights, especially the physical violence, would decline or stop altogether. We were only partially successful and yet the "attempt" continues unabated.

I understand that the mission is directed at current and former US military and US LEO.  But I hold those folks to the same standard even when they are sent overseas.

This question makes the assumption that anyone who enters the military or police force can instantly change the things that are and have been policy for generations by simply reaching out and throwing some kind of switch. See Franklin quote above.

I make no assumptions about the ability to change these institutions.  I'm rather pessimistic about those prospects.  My point is that one cannot carry out many, perhaps most of the orders issued to US military and LEO without violating the Oath of the OathKeepers.

This is one of the main reasons that OK has a much smaller number of LEOs than of vets and currently serving military. BUT that bit of knowledge would cost a person a little actual research of the subject which doesn't seem to be the pattern that is shining out here.

Being part of an occupation army includes routine activities like warrantless searches, disarming the civilian population, the imposition of martial law, etc. I find no distinction between doing these things to non-Americans and American citizens.  I find it especially difficult to believe that people trained and experienced in these activities abroad will not respond in the same way when given those orders at home.

It is amazing to me that otherwise intelligent people will castigate an entire group to exercize their emotions over an issue that they have not researched beyond the bits and pieces chosen to frame the image as they Feel it is rather than find out what it is actually.

Without having any access to the minds of the thousands currently serving, without being inside the military and police forces, how would You begin to educate those people who obviously need reeducation on freedom and personal Rights?

By all means PLEASE start your own effort to stop the madness.

And please stop denigrating those who are trying to stop the madness in the only way that we thought at the time will actually work without starting the American Revolution II.

I criticize, I do not denigrate.  I've acknowledged to Elias and others that I understand the goals and appreciate them.

Criticism, even vigorous criticism, is not the same as denigration.  I don't denigrate Elias, or gooch, or Stewart.  I do denigrate Celia S. Hyde and every MA LEO who enforces that state's draconian and wholly unconstitutional firearms laws.  I'm pleased to hear that she has been removed from the OathKeeper organization.  It's a good start.

I wish you luck, I truly do.  I'm not optimistic but then there are times that I'm pretty pessimistic about me and everything else.  I'm working one furrow in this field, others toil in adjacent, distant, or even intersecting paths.  It's all good, and I'll accept criticism of my work just as I dish out my criticism of others.

Peace,

Silver

[RVM45]

Friends,

I try to stay out of these debates.

I think that on the whole The Oath-Keepers are a comparatively good thing…

EE…

Currently it is against the Law for ANYONE to posses Full-Automatic Weapons and Short Barreled Rifles and Shotguns. This is Blatantly Unconstitutional…

Yet what Oath-Keeper would turn a blind eye to someone in possession of these?

{Yes, special permits are available in Some States—not Germaine}

Currently Convicted Felons are forbidden to own Firearms. I'm not sure about the Constitutionality of this—but it amounts to Cruel and Unusual Punishment.

Laws can be changed and gotten around but in Principle taking away a Man's ability to own Guns is no more crippling to his prospects of Happiness and Joy in life than gouging out his eyes.

The Constitution says, "Keep and BEAR." "Bear" means "Carry." What Oath-Keeper would turn a blind eye to someone caught carrying a Firearm without a Permit?

So if and when the State ever says, "Go door-to-door searching for .38 and .45 caliber Pistols and 12 and 20 Gauge Shotguns"—Presumably y'all Oath-Keepers will Piously Refuse.

In the meantime—You have no qualms about Executing a no-knock warrant against an Ex-Felon selling Sawed-Off Shotguns and Machine Guns out of his apartment…

Actually, since any and all Firearms restrictions are Immoral and Unconstitutional—a "Good" Oath-Keeper would have to refuse to enforce any Gun Restrictions and would promptly find himself out of a Job.

Someone is already Sputtering:

"But you have to draw the line somewhere."

And as Crabby Old Ayn Rand always used to say:

"Who is to Decide?"

Let us strive for a moment to temporarily put aside all Arguments against any and all Governments and Laws.

Let us assume for the sake of argument that States and Minimal Laws are Moral and Legitimate.

"Dude—_{Addressed to me}—What Firearms restrictions are you willing to accept and abide by?"

I will veto—insofar as it is up to me—any Firearm restriction that might even Conceivably apply to me at some hypothetical point in the future.

No Guns for Krazies?

Well someone may feel that I'm Krazy.

No Guns for Convicted Felons?

I may be a Convicted Felon someday. I may feel compelled—even as Thoreau was—to break a Law I feel is wrong. I might suffer a lapse of Judgement. I might be convicted of something that I didn't do.

I dislike the fact that the NRA endorses Guns for GCBs* but they have no problem with Laws against the dregs of society, "Krazy People" and "Bad People" owning Guns.

Quite frankly—although I have a ready wit and a facility with words…

I have been a hardcore loser most of my life. I've circulated amongst the bottom-feeders of the Modern World.

Like I heard a Comedienne say about Job Applications:

"Have You Ever Been Convicted of a Felony? Please Explain:"

"NO. GOOD LAWYER."

In my case: Good Luck, Native Wit and The Grace of God.

I'm probably one of the unstable Growly-Bads that the NRA GCBs* have in mind when they approve  of "Disarming the Rabble."


…..RVM45


* = Good Citizen Bastard

[mothercirce]

Stewart Rhodes has tried to do something significant and I salute him for that.  There will always be people who try to drag everything and everyone down.
[/quote]

Those who are dragging us all down are the cops and the military working on behalf of the government. They are known as the order followers. Stewart Rhodes has simply tried to smear public relations lacquer over a certified pile of shit. The oath keepers are mostly cops and military, individuals who have some special anointing to murder, steal and kidnap on behalf of their god government. Then they want to push the indoctrination of government further with this oath to a piece of paper. A piece of paper most have not consented to, that gives the government and their order followers the ability to murder, steal and kidnap us. It is obvious to see that as long as the false paradigm continues, the masses will continue to be happy defending the lesser of two evils. Mother Circe smiles from Patmos.

[Klapton Isgod]

Friends,

I try to stay out of these debates.

I think that on the whole The Oath-Keepers are a comparatively good thing…

EE…

Currently it is against the Law for ANYONE to posses Full-Automatic Weapons and Short Barreled Rifles and Shotguns. This is Blatantly Unconstitutional…

Yet what Oath-Keeper would turn a blind eye to someone in possession of these?

Every one I know.  They would want to get together and shoot them.

{Yes, special permits are available in Some States—not Germaine}

Currently Convicted Felons are forbidden to own Firearms. I'm not sure about the Constitutionality of this—but it amounts to Cruel and Unusual Punishment.

Laws can be changed and gotten around but in Principle taking away a Man's ability to own Guns is no more crippling to his prospects of Happiness and Joy in life than gouging out his eyes.

The Constitution says, "Keep and BEAR." "Bear" means "Carry." What Oath-Keeper would turn a blind eye to someone caught carrying a Firearm without a Permit?

Of course an Oath Keeper is not going to get their panties in a bunch over someone carrying a gun without someone's "permission."

So if and when the State ever says, "Go door-to-door searching for .38 and .45 caliber Pistols and 12 and 20 Gauge Shotguns"—Presumably y'all Oath-Keepers will Piously Refuse.

YES.  It's the first one on the list.  (You have read it, right?)

In the meantime—You have no qualms about Executing a no-knock warrant against an Ex-Felon selling Sawed-Off Shotguns and Machine Guns out of his apartment…

Oath Keepers has made public statements condemning "no knock" raids.  They had a march for Jose Guerena after he was murdered in a no knock raid.

Actually, since any and all Firearms restrictions are Immoral and Unconstitutional—a "Good" Oath-Keeper would have to refuse to enforce any Gun Restrictions and would promptly find himself out of a Job.

Someone is already Sputtering:

"But you have to draw the line somewhere."

I will draw it here, since my answer will be the same to the rest of this.  Not to be a jerk or anything, but you seem to be ranting a lot about what Oath Keepers does or does not support without having even tried to find out first.  On the ONE issue that OK can most likely be counted on to actually stand firm on:  RKBA.

.

[RVM45]

Maybe you're right.

I just made assumptions about how Real World Pragmatism always seems to override Stands made for Principle.

Just a story—that was years before Oath-Keepers.

I got swept up semi-innocently in a police raid.

The Laws seemed astounded that I was carrying three pistols and a half dozen knives.

Honest, I was working out of town and I had the .30 Carbine Blackhawk along because I had hopes of doing some squirrel hunting. I stuck it in the front of my pants and pulled my shirt over it because I didn't want to leave in the van in a bad neighborhood. My Everyday Carry was a 4" S&W .44 Magnum and a Government Model 1911A1 .45…

Anyway, I noticed that after that I was constantly pulled over by laws. They knew me by name and they all made a point of asking me if I "Still carried all those Guns?"

One Law quizzed me several times about "Why do you carry so many Guns?"

He kept warning me that: "I don't want you to get into trouble."

I didn't understand what he meant. Legally I could carry 50 Guns if I wanted to. I didn't feel comfortable explaining the concepts of "Back-ups and Hideouts" with someone who should know the concept already. I was left wondering:

"Are you stupid or do you simply think that I'm stupid?"

Nor did I realize that I was targeted. I thought that being pulled over so many times was just a statistical anomaly.

Years later I realized what he was hinting at:

What he was trying to say was that I'd become a target and they were going to keep hounding me until they found some pretext to cancel my permit.

{And they did…}

That is the type Real World behavior from Laws that I'm used to.



…..RVM45

[Klapton Isgod]

For the record:  I have stated many times that I have much greater optimism that the military will disobey than cops.  For most in the military, the idea of pointing their guns at other Americans is repugnant.  (I recognize that this represents a double standard that should not exist.  I am simply stating what I believe to be true, not what I think SHOULD be true).  For cops, other Americans are the "enemy" from day one.  There are other HUGE differences, but I don't feel like listing them.

Anyway...  You should know that I almost got thrown out of Oath Keepers for "cop bashing."

.

[DiabloLoco]

For the record:  I have stated many times that I have much greater optimism that the military will disobey than cops.  For most in the military, the idea of pointing their guns at other Americans is repugnant.  (I recognize that this represents a double standard that should not exist.  I am simply stating what I believe to be true, not what I think SHOULD be true).  For cops, other Americans are the "enemy" from day one.  There are other HUGE differences, but I don't feel like listing them.

Anyway...  You should know that I almost got thrown out of Oath Keepers for "cop bashing."

.

I understand what you are saying, but will add this- Many returning soldiers go directly into law enforcement. I have seen some reports that state something like 20% of them try to become a cop when they get back. Just sayin'.

[mothercirce]

Anyway...  You should know that I almost got thrown out of Oath Keepers for "cop bashing."

Mother Circe has been thrown out of two separate golden corrals, a pee wee hockey game, a minor league hockey game, several different movie theaters and a children's hospital for "cop bashing." Mother Circe was allowed to leave Golden Corral with a full doggie bag both times. Mother Circe is blessed

[mothercirce]

Mother Circe has been thrown out of two separate golden corrals, a pee wee hockey game, a minor league hockey game, several different movie theaters and a children's hospital for "cop bashing." Mother Circe was allowed to leave Golden Corral with a full doggie bag both times. Mother Circe is blessed

I tip my hat to you.  My kind of Mother.  {slow clap}

Mother Circe wonders, is NMB an acronym, or is it simply short for NUMB ? Either way, Mother Circe is always fond of slow claps.

[jamie]

  In Haiti a U.S. army group I have some slight knowledge of  specifically read the Haitian constitution and tried to abide by it.  There were  two cases where men refused to do what the Haitian constitution said they couldn't do.  That was no problem because everyone knew they were right. 


Regarding gun confiscation in Afghanistan-  Guns of all types, sizes and descriptions were everywhere.  In  one case a group acting as a blocking force came across a man.  The Afghan national army soldiers searched the man and found a Tokarev, which were common (but not as common as makarovs), The ANA wanted to confiscate it. The man proceeded on his way with his personal weapon.
 
Same thing happened other times with AK type weapons and in one case a shotgun.   

A lot of it has to do with leadership, either  designated leaders at any level or informal leaders. Or just people who have enough passion and ability to articulate.

 

 I don't know about now but most people can recognize when something is wrong.  That is probably increasingly less so with state schooling though.  And then all it takes is one man or woman to refuse, one individual with a backbone.

  I'm not saying this always works, but it does happen.   I'm also not saying that anything is right about any of the wars, the police atrocities or anything else that offends people here.

  The blanket use of  the term "order followers" is simplistic and stupid.  In my estimation it is used by people who aren't as bright as they think they are.   

I believe that the OK concept has merit in the real world. It may not work but any resistance at any level is something to appreciate rather than tear down.

Criticizing is fine but some people make a career out of it and offer nothing else.


I wonder what has happened to the attempt to trash Stewart Rhodes right here on this board?  It read an awful lot like an attempt at denigration to me.

[mothercirce]

The blanket use of  the term "order followers" is simplistic and stupid.  In my estimation it is used by people who aren't as bright as they think they are.

Order Followers

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_y9FpBAVuIc

[jamie]

The blanket use of  the term "order followers" is simplistic and stupid.  In my estimation it is used by people who aren't as bright as they think they are.

Order Followers

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_y9FpBAVuIc

Of course,  the concept has been known about and discussed long before Passio was born.  Usually, unlike Passio, by people who had actual experience.  A notable example and one where I became very aware of the concept of order followers  is from J. Glenn Gray's book, The Warriors Reflections on Men in Battle.