Print

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

[David]

Excellent editorial from William N. Grigg,  it's past time for the oath keepers to put their money where their mouths are...



This presents Oath Keepers with a splendid PR opportunity that should become one of its most important ongoing campaigns: Why doesn't that organization reach out to another estimable group, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, in demanding an end to the "war on drugs"?


Most of the unconscionable acts and policies the Oath Keepers oppose -- wholesale violation of individual rights, detentions, confiscations, civilian disarmament, militarization of domestic law enforcement -- are not a vague future possibility, but rather a tangible reality right now because of the "war on drugs."




http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2009/10/end-occupation-mission-for-oath-keepers.html

[freewoman]

The article isn't bad.  However, methinks they're trying to jump on the bandwagon with too much luggage.  Oath Keepers has only been in existence since last March.  Why the demand that OK join with another group?  So the other group can benefit from OK's positive press? 

Oath Keepers is about reaching active duty and former military, law enforcement, and firefighters--anyone who's taken an oath to protect and defend the Constitution--to encourage them to keep their oath, and to remind them that they do not have to obey unlawful orders.  It is made up of a wide variety of people, from a wide variety of political perspectives.  To muddy the waters with too many causes will eventually destroy that primary message.

On a personal level, I do not support the War on (Some) Drugs.  And perhaps some members of Oath Keepers will agree with that stance.  But to demand that "it's past time for the oath keepers to put their money where their mouths are" is pretentious, to my mind.  Especially since the organization isn't even a year old.

[Bill St. Clair]

I still think there's something to be gained from helping at least the federal Oath Keepers to understand their oath better. Show me the section of the U.S. Constitution that allows drug possession and sale to be criminalized. Or a whole host of other "crimes" that the feds have invented out of whole cloth, with no Constitutional authority whatsoever, except a Commerce clause with so many loopholes that its gone beyond tattered to just a pile of threads, hemp threads, by the way.

When hemp was first renamed "marihuana", so that they could pass a stamp tax on it without alarming congress critters whose constituents made their living growing industrial hemp, they did it in a way that, though questionable, might pass Constitutional muster, a tax ( http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/taxact/mjtaxact.htm ). And alcohol prohibition was done as a Constitutional Amendment, because they knew that it wouldn't be Constitutional otherwise. Somehow, since then, we've allowed the feds to get away with criminalizing anything they please, Constitution be damned. And the courts don't allow challenges unless you've actually been harmed, i.e. placed yourself upon the rack by getting arrested and convicted for the newly-minted "crime". War is a racket, and the war on some drugs is the biggest racket on earth.

Unfortunately, most cops think it's not their problem to figure out which of the so-called "laws" they've been tasked with enforcing are Constitutional. "That's the job of the courts," they'll say, while merrily bashing your head for sitting in your own house smoking a nearly harmless weed.

[freewoman]

Bill, I agree fully with your viewpoints.  But the organization is just getting started.  They need to have a chance to get going before too many causes get loaded onto them.  The idea that not all orders given to military personnel and LEOs are lawful is pretty earth-shattering to some folks.  Helping every Oath Keeper understand that they have the responsibility to determine which orders are lawful, and which are not, is a very big task, for the very reasons you mentioned--the attitude of "Constitution be damned" has been in place for a long time.  In the long run, though, I believe OK will be better served to teach the general principle of discerning an unlawful order, rather than focusing on a particular issue.  The whole goal of OK is to help oath takers understand their oath better.  I, for one, would rather see OK members gain a general understanding of what a lawful order is, and what an unlawful order is, so they can apply that information across the board.  To be sure, the War on (Some) Drugs is a very good example that can be used.  But it's also highly inflammatory, and will turn people off before the group gains traction.  (I am not saying that OK should back down because someone might be offended.  I am saying that ya gotta pick yer battles.)  Consciousness can be raised in a variety of ways. 

[Bill St. Clair]

Freewoman, makes sense. I think you're right that the concept of a duty to refuse to follow an illegal order is a lot for many oath takers to comprehend. Having a list of ten things that are easy to agree on is a good start.

[Bluelinegirl]

This reminds me of a time in the Army when I was given a direct order that I didnt agree with, I accepted the order but before carrying it out I went over his head. I felt like I was running and tattling to 'Daddy' but I did speak to our CO and told him that I had a concern. He listened to me without judgement and with full discretion spoke to my Sgt and changed the orders. I felt comfortable going to him no matter what, knowing that, in my heart, I had a concern. Genuine concern. Not a disagreement with authority or anything petty. I didnt take action against the order. I sought counsel from a higher up (kinda hard when the seemingly highest up is the most corupt and vendictive), but I believe our Military can and must stop this takeover.  Our Government is issuing bad orders! And 'We the People,' the SUPREME AUTHORITY, disagree.  'We the People' are The Supreme Authority. Im going to head over to Military dot com and ask them when they are going to answer to us and Join the Oathkeepers. Join me.

[Silver]

I think Grigg has a point, and I don't expect the Oathkeepers to comply.

The organization simply reeks with hypocrisy.  Where where these folks 2001-2008?  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. 

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.

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 staions, random searches at subway stations, drug dogs and property confiscation at checkpoints or traffic stops, or warrantless wiretaps of the entire nation.

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.

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.

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....

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.

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.

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.

Peace,

Silver

[gaurdduck]

Hmmm...
Is Oathkeeper's effecting positive change?
Or is all of it just to make its members feel good about themselves?

No offense to those who are real Oathkeeper's. Just to the hypocrites.

[jamie]

 What Silver is saying has been brought up before.   There is never an answer, acknowledgement or discussion of the point.  If anyone actually reads the Grigg article as was posted here and I posted yesterday, there are blatant and on going law enforcement abuses happening everywhere.  One would think these outrages are unconstitutional and would fit with the oath-keeper mission. 






   
   a few bad apples
« on: October 25, 2009, 12:04:24 PM »
   
Reply with quote Modify message Remove message
http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2009/10/end-occupation-mission-for-oath-keepers.html

From the excellent blog Pro Libertate  by William Norman Grigg


Deputies assigned to narcotics duty committed a string of crimes, some of them acts of state-sponsored terrorism -- such as fire-bombing homes of suspected drug dealers, or hiring arsonists to burn down the homes of personal enemies. On one occasion, a deputy doused a recalcitrant suspect with lighter fluid and set him on fire. Drug dealers who cooperated were protected from prosecution; one was even given a gun and a police uniform and permitted to take part in a raid.


I guess this kind of behavior is outside the Oath-Keeper mission, nothing unconstitutional here. Just a few bad apples.


OTOH from reader comments...    When you feel the need to take an oath to uphold your oath, it's time to change to an honest profession.

[Bluelinegirl]

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.

[/end quote]

*arms open wide waiting for my hug*  I did not like what Bush did but I had no idea about what is really going on. I think my head was up the arse of the Ostrich in front of me! I loved my own four walls and to each other, his own. I still will not carry my neighbor, I might pick him up and give him a red pill, but each must walk his own. I dont remember the first red pill I took... but im sure it was handed to me. I have lots of red pills to share with my fellows. One sheeple at a time. And for the record, I sure do miss that big screen!

[Bluelinegirl]

And regarding the crimes that are being committed today against us and our Constitution, I cannot speak for the rest of the Oathkeepers as I am awaiting an answer to that question myself (much as I have asked many of you here). Ive asked many and often, when are we going to act..... As for my part, im doing the best I can. And I have never taken arms against another, foreign or domestic. I am a protector at heart. I fight with the weapons God gives me.  The Oathkeepers are not active duty or vets, they are all of us. Including you if you want to fight for our Country, that is your Oath, should you choose to accept it.

[2ndA]

Some people are simply never happy.  If it wasn't done when they wanted it done in the way they wanted it done according to their opinion then by god it's all hypocrisy.

So where were you, Silver, or anyone else for that matter?  Where was YOUR organization?  What did you do?  Post on a message board?  Gripe about everyone else?

People do what they can when they can.  If it's not good enough for you then do something better.  If you haven't and can't then either help those who are or get the hell out of the way.  Any fool can run someone else down.

Feh

[Plinker-MS]

I, for one, think that Oath Keepers is a brilliant idea, and the charges of hypocrisy come from people who don't understand the strategy.

Just take a look at the "10 Orders We Will Not Obey"

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2009/03/03/declaration-of-orders-we-will-not-obey/

1. We will NOT obey any order to disarm the American people.

2. We will NOT obey any order to conduct warrantless searches of the American people, their homes, vehicles, papers, or effects -- such as warrantless house-to house searches for weapons or persons.

3. We will NOT obey any order to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants� or to subject them to trial by military tribunal.

4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency� on a state, or to enter with force into a state, without the express consent and invitation of that state’s legislature and governor.

... and so on.


The beauty of this list is that promising NOT to obey hypothetical orders to disarm the American people, confiscate their property, and put them in concentration camps puts the "anti-OathKeepers" (notably the SPLC and the elements of the Department of Homeland Security who want to brand everybody and their cousin as an "extremist") in the position of defending the indefensible.   "Um... what difference does it make if cops and soldiers promise not to round up American citizens and blockade American cities?  Surely you don't think that that would *ever* be a good idea?"

It doesn't stop there, of course.   Several of those "10 orders" have indeed been issued (and obeyed) in recent memory, under the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations, with disastrous results.  Some of those orders are not just issued from time to time, but are Standard Operating Procedure in the War on Drugs, and other wars.

I think things will get interesting when people who promise not to obey "bad" orders put 2 and 2 together and realize that such orders are not always hypothetical, and don't only come from Democrats.  IMHO, it is better if they come to that realization themselves.    Having the OK organization take an official position such as Mr. Grigg seems to be recommending risks becoming "just another advocacy group".



(disclaimer - I am not an OathKeeper,  but I did join the military when I was young and foolish, and got out while the getting was good.)

[Undefined]

I, for one, think that Oath Keepers is a brilliant idea, and the charges of hypocrisy come from people who don't understand the strategy.

Just take a look at the "10 Orders We Will Not Obey"

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2009/03/03/declaration-of-orders-we-will-not-obey/

1. We will NOT obey any order to disarm the American people.

2. We will NOT obey any order to conduct warrantless searches of the American people, their homes, vehicles, papers, or effects -- such as warrantless house-to house searches for weapons or persons.

3. We will NOT obey any order to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants� or to subject them to trial by military tribunal.

4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency� on a state, or to enter with force into a state, without the express consent and invitation of that state’s legislature and governor.

... and so on.


The beauty of this list is that promising NOT to obey hypothetical orders to disarm the American people, confiscate their property, and put them in concentration camps puts the "anti-OathKeepers" (notably the SPLC and the elements of the Department of Homeland Security who want to brand everybody and their cousin as an "extremist") in the position of defending the indefensible.   "Um... what difference does it make if cops and soldiers promise not to round up American citizens and blockade American cities?  Surely you don't think that that would *ever* be a good idea?"

It doesn't stop there, of course.   Several of those "10 orders" have indeed been issued (and obeyed) in recent memory, under the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations, with disastrous results.  Some of those orders are not just issued from time to time, but are Standard Operating Procedure in the War on Drugs, and other wars.

I think things will get interesting when people who promise not to obey "bad" orders put 2 and 2 together and realize that such orders are not always hypothetical, and don't only come from Democrats.  IMHO, it is better if they come to that realization themselves.    Having the OK organization take an official position such as Mr. Grigg seems to be recommending risks becoming "just another advocacy group".



(disclaimer - I am not an OathKeeper,  but I did join the military when I was young and foolish, and got out while the getting was good.)

This is pretty much how I see it and why I like the organization despite not caring a whit about the Constitution.

Like Silver, though, I do wonder how many will 'keep their oath' when TSHTF (in the common usage). I suppose the answer is, like most things, 'We'll see.'

[Elias Alias]

Alright. It's now after midnight, and as I type this it's 1:11 a.m., morning of October 27, 2009. I left Las Vegas yesterday morning at about 10:00 a.m., and drove from Vegas back to Montana. Got in just before midnight, a little over an hour ago. Hit a snowstorm at the Butte pass while headed east on I-90, and had to take that pass at ten miles per hour in hard-blowing snow which had already placed four inches of snow on the highway. I'm bushed, and I'm elated to have attended the national Oath Keepers conference in Las Vegas at the "Texas Station" casino/hotel.

I have one word to the wise on this thread. Before assaulting Oath Keepers, why not sit back, take a deep breath, relax a bit, and mull over some ideas which could help clarify in anyone's mind the great advantage to our society which Oath Keepers offers. There are several reasons why I'm suggesting all critics of Oath Keepers here at this board cool their jets before making fools of themselves. The first reason is that anyone who has criticism of Oath Keepers would do better to support our mission rather than insult and attack us. Before I'm through with the critics posting on this thread, the foolishness of detractors is going to become quite apparent.

Now let me ask all who know me on this board to explain to me publicly how it may be that, in your opinion, I'm now engaged in a futile and benign movement which will do nothing to alleviate our current domestic problems, such as the War on Drugs and general police corruption. Anyone who knows me should already know that I have opposed the War on Drugs openly and vehemently. The records of that are in six years worth of posting on this board, and I do believe that no one who has been around this place for any considerable time would dream of accusing me of being sympathetic with the unlawful behavior of rogue police departments and individual cops and the military escapades abroad (and domestically).

Having said that, I'll next state that I've been opposing the War on Drugs and the illegal invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan for years, long before the current Democrat President campaigned for and won the White House. Anybody disagree with that statement? Anybody here want to accuse me of giving G.W. Bush a pass on his sins and crimes? Anybody here want to accuse me of being soft on police corruption? Didn't think so.

So where does that put me now in anybody's mind when it comes to my participation in Oath Keepers? Can anyone here challenge my very public stance as a Freedom Outlaw and a Voluntaryist-Anarchist with a personal commitment to fight against Federal tyranny in this country of ours? I'm inviting anybody here, especially anybody who's read my writings on these very boards for the past six years, to sit down and discuss these issues with me directly. I can quickly answer all the criticisms I've thus far seen on this thread, and I'm glad to do so.

First, a metaphor....

The woodsman approaches the wall of tall trees at forest edge. He selects the first tree to fell. He begins by swinging powerfully his ax with a downward blow to the trunk of that tree. He next swings an upward swing with the blade of his ax hitting just below the cut from his previous swing. The two swings of his ax have now created a chipped-out horizontally-oriented "V" slot in the side of the tree.

But the tree doesn't fall. He will have to make more swings with his ax, widening and deepening the cut with each subsequent swing. Eventually, after much chopping with his ax, he will fell the tree where he wants it to land.

But before he can complete the ax-strokes, his detractors who are idly watching with doubtful eyes from behind him complain that his strokes into the tree's trunk are not effective, are not going to accomplish anything, take too long, or any other similar critique. Meanwhile, the woodsman continues to swing in spite of the criticism, and finally he vanquishes his detractors by felling the tree.

That's the metaphor. Apply as desired to this thread, and please engage me in a discussion about Oath Keepers. I am a member of the Board of Oath Keepers and am the Director for the State of Montana. Tuesday night, at the Bozeman, Montana public library on Main Street, I'll be giving a film showing of the Michael New story, followed by a panel discussion with q & a. Between now and that event tonight I have to drive to pick up my first issue of my new newspaper, The Montana Messenger, and begin distribution of it - and I also have to prepare my notes for the event in town. I'll be busy, as I generally am these days. So I may not reply as swiftly as anyone may wish, but I promise I'll address every single point brought up here on this thread. And I'm very proudly declaring that I can present a precise and definitive answer to anyone's criticism of any topic relative to Oath Keepers. Meanwhile, I'd advise anyone wanting to belittle Oath Keepers to look a bit more deeply into our mission and into our approach to fulfilling that mission.

One question for openers - if Oath Keepers is a futile, benign, and ineffective organization, why in hell would SPLC and Chris Matthews be attacking us so rigorously? Why would Fedgov care what we're saying, if it doesn't pose to them a very serious problem? There is some truth in that reflection, so consider my question carefully.

When I return to this thread I'll bring some surprising tidbits from our conference, and I'm thinking right now with a smile that what I've got to report shall quell our detractors nicely.

Meanwhile, Bill St.Clair has kindly furnished a link to the videography composed by the Las Vegas Journal Review, and I'd like to invite all here to check this out - http://www.youtube.com/user/OathKeepersOK#p/a/0/hP6gKUqDLvM

I'll close by noting that freewoman is right - picking our battles is our prerogative, and is a good tactic, as we shall see.

Salute!
Elias