by Mac Slavo
In America today there are some people who believe themselves to be above the law, and it’s unfortunate that in many cases the very individuals and organizations tasked with ensuring the legitimacy of our justice system are the ones who fail to understand or abide by the law of the land.
In Cotati, California police officers showed up at the doorstep of one family after they were reportedly called because of an alleged domestic violence dispute, much to the surprise of the homeowners. As Cotati PD massed on the couple’s front lawn, the homeowner began documenting the encounter.
Law enforcement officers indicated they would be entering the home because of “domestic violence,” at which point both homeowners responded by advising them that they had merely had an argument and no domestic violence had taken place.
Baffled that the residents of the home refused to exit, one officer asked why they wouldn’t respond to their order.
The homeowner, who had previously cited his fourth Amendment right to be safe and secure on his property unless a warrant had been presented by officials, responds with what undoubtedly left police bewildered.
“Because we don’t live in a police state, sir.
Martial law has not been established in this country. “
What happens next is textbook jackbooted police state behavior, as cops kick in the family’s door unlawfully, without cause, and without a warrant.
Written by Alex Newman
With a veto-proof majority, the Missouri legislature approved a popular bill protecting private property and due process rights by banning a deeply controversial United Nations “sustainability” scheme known as UN Agenda 21. The legislation, SB 265, now heads to Democrat Governor Jay Nixon, who has not yet taken a public position on the issue.
The effort to ban Agenda 21 in Missouri, widely celebrated by activists from across the political spectrum, comes in the wake of similar moves to stop the UN plan across America. In Alabama, for example, lawmakers in both houses unanimously approved a law last year prohibiting the international “sustainable development” agenda within the state. Numerous other states are working to do the same, and multiple legislatures have adopted strongly worded resolutions blasting the program.
In Missouri, the legislation was approved 24 to 9 in the GOP-controlled Senate last month. The Republican-dominated state House of Representatives, meanwhile, approved the bill 131 to 42 on May 8, also with a slight veto-proof majority. It remains unclear whether the governor will try to stop the legislation, sign it, or simply do nothing and let it quietly become law, according to news reports.
With lawmakers able to override any potential veto, activists who supported the effort are cautiously optimistic that the state government, as well as city and county authorities, will soon be prohibited by law from implementing the controversial UN agenda in Missouri. Liberty-minded legislators, responding to strong grassroots pressure from constituents, also say the law is needed to protect the rights of citizens.
The two-page legislation is short and simple. “Neither the state of Missouri nor any political subdivision shall adopt or implement policy recommendations that deliberately or inadvertently infringe or restrict private property rights without due process, as may be required by policy recommendations originating in, or traceable to Agenda 21, adopted by the United Nations in 1992 at its Conference on Environment and Development,” the bill reads, defining political subdivisions as cities, counties, public-private partnerships, and other public entities.
Gregory Hicks: “I Swore an Oath to Uphold and Defend the Constitution …
I am Here to Honor That Oath.”
by Stewart Rhodes * May 09, 2013
One of the most moving statements made by star Benghazi witness Gregory Hicks during yesterday’s hearing was about his oath. During his opening statement, Hicks said, “On February 19th, 1991, I swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. I am Here to Honor That oath.”
And honor it he did, with frank, honest, and heartfelt testimony that laid bare the horrendous fact that two inexplicable stand-down orders were given that left Hicks and Special Forces personnel in stunned disbelief and outrage, and left their brothers in Benghazi to fend for themselves.
Stand-down order #1 was when Hicks requested deployment of the special incident Foreign Emergency Support Team (FEST), which is specifically designed to handle such attacks. Hicks testified that the FEST team had dedicated aircraft capable of responding within four hours – which is exactly why that team was created after the attack on the USS Cole. When asked why the FEST team was not deployed, Hick’s answered, “I don’t know.”
Stand-down order #2 was when the Special Forces team in Tripoli was all set to jump on a C-130 and fly to Benghazi and rescue their brothers, when their commander, Lt. Col. Gibson, was ordered to stand-down and stay in Tripoli.
As Hicks said, “I told him to go get our people and that is what he wanted to do.” When asked how Colonel Gibson reacted to being told to stand-down, Hicks said he “was furious.”
The SF Colonel also told Hicks, “this is the first time in my career that a diplomat has more balls than a member of the military.”
As to why the team had been ordered to stand-down and NOT try to rescue their brothers, Hicks said “I don’t know.”
Clearly, Colonel Gibson needs to be called to testify, and that testimony could be explosive, especially if that career Special Forces officer is still furious about he and his men not being allowed to do what they are trained to do, and what they LIVE to do.
Taking the fight to the enemy to save comrades in arms or hostages is something that every special operations warrior would be chomping at the bit to go and do, and being told to inexplicably stand-down and let your brothers hang in the wind, when you are their only known chance of rescue, goes against every instinct and creed of such men.
Frankly, under such circumstances, I’m surprised they didn’t have a sudden, inexplicable failure of commo when talking to the ball-deficient general – “sorry sir, you are breaking up, I can’t hear you” and just carry on with what was right, and needed to be done to back-up fellow Americans already engaged in combat.
The media has been focusing on the obvious cover-up and spin afterwards, with the disclosure that the Administration knew, the very next day, that it had been a well organized attack, not a spontaneous riot, but nonetheless insisted on repeating that false “riot” talking point in numerous interviews and press conferences.
Certainly, that is important, but nowhere near as important as finding out why the FEST team was not deployed and why the Special Forces personnel who were on their way to conduct a rescue were ordered to stand-down.
This is only the beginning, and who knows what else may come to light, but that intentional withholding of life-saving military support is a smoking gun all on its own.
Founder of Oath Keepers
PS – I am at the Boston Bombing Hearing in DC, which is beginning now.
From time to time, I have been highly annoyed with the school that my daughter attends. I have set up meetings with teachers, principals, and administrators. I have brought in paperwork and pleaded my case on a variety of topics. I have made scathing remarks. Once, I even had the utter audacity to argue a point with the principal with my daughter right there in the room, which is apparently a no-no because it “undermined the authority of the principal”.
However, I haven’t yet gone on a rampage against which the police would need to come in and defend the school against me. They must do things differently in Puyallup, Washington:
Did you catch that?
The idea was to test the response of police and firefighters to a situation that was right out of the news headlines.
What news headlines?
I read a lot of news every day and these “angry parents” taking over a school at gunpoint, requiring SWAT intervention, somehow completely escaped my notice!
Well, it must be true, because the police officer in charge said, “We’ve been dealing with this across the country for years.”
It’s very obvious what this actually is. It is desensitization training.
to make emotionally insensitive or callous; specifically: to extinguish an emotional response (as of fear, anxiety, or guilt) to stimuli that formerly induced it.
So, by this definition, they want to make it easier for normally moral people to perpetuate an attack on a group of people that would ordinarily not be their targets. They don’t want these officers to have hesitation caused by anxiety or guilt before unloading on an “angry” mom or dad at a school.
This is very similar to the recent scandal of the targets of gun owners that were supplied to the DHS in order to make it easier for them to fire upon everyday people. The targets included an elderly woman, an elderly man, a little boy, and a pregnant woman in a nursery.
Once upon a time, police were there to protect people like parents, children, the elderly, and pregnant ladies. But the lines are being drawn and great effort is being undertaken to create a new breed of villains for the “authorities” to fight – and those villains are us.
In the war for the continued existence of our Nation’s Constitutional principles, I had long wondered whether statists were simply confounded by the Bill of Rights and ignorant of its function or whether they were maliciously inclined, knowing exactly what it means but seeking its destruction anyway. In recent years, I have decided it is a combination of both faults.
Statists are people who view every aspect of society through the lens of government power. If you want to know the primary difference between Constitutionalists and anti-Constitutionalists, you have to understand that some people in this world only want control over their own lives, while other people desperately clamor for control over other people’s lives. Why do they do this? Usually, it’s fear. Fear of the persistent unknowns in life. Fear that they do not have the intelligence or the will to take responsibility for their own futures. Fear that they will be forced to take care of themselves. Fear that their ideologies will be found lacking. Fear that if others are allowed freedom, they will one day indirectly suffer for it.
This fear makes statists easy to manipulate by the establishment and easy to use as a tool for the expansion of government dominance. Because statists are so weak-minded and fainthearted, they become very comfortable with the idea of other people making their decisions for them; and they will always attempt to answer every perceived problem with more government control.
When confronted with a proponent of liberty, the statist typically reels in horror. He has so invested himself in bureaucracy that he sees himself as a part of it. To attack the bureaucracy is to attack him. To deny the validity of the bureaucracy is to deny the validity of his existence. His very personality and ego are tied to the machine, so he will spit and rage against anyone who refuses to conform. This is why it is not uncommon at all to find a wild collection of logical fallacies within the tirades of the average statist. Statists act as though they are driven by reason; but in reality, they are driven by seething bias.
A perfect example of this insanity is the article “There Are No Absolute Rights,” published by The Daily Beast.
Let’s first be clear about the kind of rag we are dealing with. The Daily Beast was launched by Tina Brown, a former editor of Vanity Fair and The New Yorker who was also a British citizen until 2005. I would say she’s a kind of female Piers Morgan. For anyone who might take that as a compliment, trust me; it isn’t. Brown and Morgan are European collectivists who immigrated to America just to tell us how our Constitutionally conservative heritage of independence is outdated; meanwhile, the EU is in the shambles of failed socialism. We used to drive such people into the ocean, and now they breathe our oxygen while telling us what is politically “fashionable.”
In 2010, The Daily Beast merged with Newsweek, a magazine notorious for its statist crush on the Federal government (and now out of print). To say that The Daily Beast is a socialist platform and a mouthpiece for the Administration of President Barack Obama is an understatement, but I would point out that the website also tends to agree with politicians and judges on the right that also promote a “living document” interpretation of the Constitution. Whether right or left, if you believe that the Bill of Rights is up for constant interpretation and revision or outright destruction, then you are the bee’s knees in the eyes of The Beast.
The article focuses on gun rights and how silly conservatives foolishly cling to the idea that some lines in the sand should never be crossed in terms of personal freedom. In a rather mediocre and rambling analysis, The Beast uses two primary arguments to qualify this stance, essentially asserting that:
1) Compromises have already been made to the Bill of Rights; therefore, nothing is sacred.
2) Even some Republicans agree with compromises to the Bill of Rights when it comes to other Amendments, so why are we being so childish about “reinterpreting” the 2nd Amendment?
First, the revisionist methodology of the Bill of Rights consistently ignores the history of its writing. The colonists and Founding Fathers of our Nation, having successfully triumphed in a bloody revolution against what many then considered the most advanced elitist military empire on Earth, had absolutely no trust whatsoever in the concept of centralized government. Many of the colonials were anti-Federalists who believed that an overly powerful central government was a threat to future liberty. They felt that an immovable and unchangeable legal shield had to be created in order to ensure that a tyrannical system never prevailed again.
Thomas Jefferson said:
“[A] bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse.”
This statement includes modern governments as well. Technological advancement does not change the rules surrounding timeless inherent moral principles, as much as statists would like to argue otherwise.
The colonials demanded the inclusion of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution as a prerequisite for the establishment of the Federal government. This means that the Federal government owes its entire existence to a very strict agreement made on the Bill of Rights. By extension, if the Bill of Rights is politically diluted or denied, then the legitimacy of the Federal government must also be denied, for it has violated the very charter that gave it life.
The writer of the article, Michael Tomasky, lists numerous transgressions against our Constitutional protections; but he does not do so in the spirit of activism. Rather, he lists them as examples of how “compromise” on our freedoms is necessary (or somehow inevitable) in the name of the collective good. He claims Republicans are perfectly willing to sacrifice certain liberties, like freedom of speech, privacy or even Miranda rights, in the name of political expediency.
I wholeheartedly agree that our civil liberties have been whittled away by the establishment. I also agree that many so-called Republicans have betrayed the founding values of our culture and even voted to diminish or destroy the 2nd Amendment. But let’s think hard about the faulty logic behind Tomansky’s position. Do two wrongs or hundreds of wrongs really make a right? Tomansky is saying that because we have failed as a society to fully protect our freedoms and because our government has been successful in criminally neglecting them, we should simply give in and relinquish all freedom.
He would respond to this accusation by claiming that he is not calling for the relinquishment of all liberties, only the liberties he thinks are dangerous to society. The problem is, that is not how the Constitution was designed. Amendments can be made, yes. But amendments contrary to the Bill of Rights are not Constitutional as per the original agreement made after the revolution. The Bill of Rights was meant to be sacrosanct, untouchable — period. No Federal law, no State law and no Amendment can be enforced that violates those protections. The Bill of Rights was not created as a rule book for what the people can do; it was created as a rule book for what government cannot do. Once you remove hard fast restrictions like the Bill of Rights from the picture, you give the government license to make its own rules. That is how tyranny is born.
As far as Republican attacks on the Constitution are concerned, Tomasky has obviously never heard of the false left/right paradigm. He finds solace in the totalitarian actions of neocons because neocons are not conservative; they are statists, just like him. Ultimately, there is no right or left. Only freedom and decentralization, or slavery and collectivism. There are those who revel in control, and those who rebel against control. The rest of the debate is nonsense and distraction.
Tomsky opines: “Imagine what conservatives would think of a group of liberals who insisted, while threatening an insurrection, on a pure and absolute interpretation of the Fourth or Sixth Amendment–and imagine how ridiculous they would look to average Americans.”
Actually, any true conservative would be standing right beside those liberals, as many of us in the liberty movement have done in the past in activism against the transgressions of fake conservatives like George W. Bush or Mitt Romney, with his dismal anti-Constitution voting record. Frankly, who cares what “average Americans” think about our battle for what is right? Does Tomasky base all of his personal convictions on what happens to be popular at the moment? I think so.
What statists also don’t seem to comprehend is that there is a factor in the fight over Constitutional law that goes far beyond the Constitution itself.
The Constitution, as a document, is not what we as Americans and human beings obtain our rights from. The Constitution is only a written representation of the inborn freedoms derived from natural law and inherent conscience. We are born with a sense of liberty and that includes a right to self-defense from any enemy, foreign or domestic. No amount of political gaming, twisted rationalizations or intellectual idiocy is ever going to change these pre-existing rights.
Tomasky insists that: “[T]he idea that any right is unrestricted is totally at odds with history, the law, and reality.”
He uses the tired argument that some restrictions on personal liberty, including restrictions on gun rights, are “reasonable” given the circumstances of the times. And, it only follows that he and other statists should be the ones to decide what is reasonable.
I disagree, along with millions of other Americans; and believe me, this is a serious problem for statists. If Tomasky and The Daily Beast want to impose their collective worldview on the rest of us and dismantle our individual freedoms guaranteed in natural law and the Bill of Rights, then I’m afraid they’ll have to fight us for them. In the end, legal precedence is irrelevant. Political precedence is irrelevant. Political party is irrelevant. Historical precedence is irrelevant. The theater of words is irrelevant. Statists need to understand that there is no alternative. There is no “silver bullet” argument that will make us forget what is fundamentally true. There is no juxtaposition of logic that will muddle our resolve or confuse our principles. Some rights are indeed absolute; and we will not yield them, ever. The statist “reality” is a far cry from what actually is; and soon, I’m afraid, they will learn this lesson the hard way.
This article was originally published at Activist Post
Article is also on oathkeepers.org
The Arizona senate unanimously passed SB1439, the Constitutional Tender Act, making gold and silver legal tender by a vote of 18-0 last week.
On Thursday, Governor Jan Brewer refused to sign the bill into law and vetoed the measure claiming the law would result in lost tax revenue for the state.
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer vetoed a measure on Thursday that would have made gold and silver legal tender in the state, saying the legislation could have resulted in lost tax revenue.
The Republican-controlled state legislature voted through the measure last month in a response to what backers said was a lack of confidence in the international monetary system.
The bill called for Arizona to make gold and silver coins and bullion legal tender beginning in mid-2014, joining existing U.S. currency issued by the federal government.
“While I believe the concern over a devalued dollar as a result of an unsustainable federal deficit is justified, I am unable to support this legislation,” Brewer, a Republican, said in an open letter to state Senate President Andy Biggs.
Brewer noted that the “administrative and fiscal burdens” for taxpayers and the revenue department “remain vague.” She also cited uncertainty over whether the legislation would have required the state to exempt transactions involving collectable coins and bills that were authorized by Congress and could be used as legal tender.
“This would result in lost revenue to the state, while giving businesses that buy and sell collectable coins or currency originally authorized by Congress an unfair tax advantage,” she said.
It is highly unlikely that tax revenues would suffer under this proposed legislation since only a small minority of transactions would be conducted in gold and silver and businesses are required to collect taxes on those transactions as with any other.
This “lost revenue” argument seems to be an easy scapegoat for protecting the Federal Reserve’s monopoly which Brewer was presumably instructed to do.
You may contact Jan Brewer’s office using the phone numbers below:
800-253-0883 (outside Maricopa County only)
Be polite, but tell her what you think of her vetoing constitutional competing currencies in Arizona.
Who: Oath Keepers / Jeffrey Earnhardt
What: Public Awareness Campaign to bring the Oath Keepers’ message to the NASCAR audience and general public by running a NASCAR race car driven by Jeffrey Earnhardt. Oath Keepers is asking like-minded Americans to donate to get the Oath Keepers race car on the track and get our message about defending the Constitution out to millions.
Where & When: Dover International Speedway Dover, DE. Saturday, June 01 02:30 PM ET - TV: ESPN – Radio: MRN. The television audience is 1.5 million people average for this race (Should exceed this number with the move from ESPN2 to ESPN), Race attendance for the NNS race will be 40,000 people. Jeffrey will also do media promoting the Oath Keepers message leading into the race weekend, reaching millions more. In addition, the social media push using the Earnhardt brand will get attention and help spread the Oath Keepers message to millions prior to the race.
WHY: To get the message out to the public that our Constitution is at risk and those of us who took the Oath to protect and defend it cannot sit quietly by while it’s dismantled. There are millions of veterans and active duty NASCAR fans who need to hear our message about their oath responsibilities. Jeffrey Earnhardt is an American patriot who gets it and wants to do what he can to help carry the message.
”Oath Keepers are those who stepped forward, raised their hand and are willing to die to protect and defend our Constitution; that means everything to me and I’m honored to be a part of this.” – Jeffrey Earnhardt
RECAP: Jeffery Earnhardt will take a stand for liberty on June 1st by driving the Oath Keepers car at Dover Delaware . We need you to help us put the car on the track.
This car represents the values we share as Americans who stand ready to defend the constitution at all costs. Oath Keepers is comprised of active duty military, police, veterans, first responders, and any freedom loving American who shares the enlightened vision of the founding fathers. Your donation will speak loudly to all the foes of our Republic, both foreign and domestic, so please be as generous as you can to help preserve the liberty we cherish.
NOTE FROM STEWART RHODES, FOUNDER OF OATH KEEPERS:
This is a rare opportunity to bring the Oath Keepers message to millions of NASCAR fans. Many of them are veterans, and there are also a large number of active duty military who watch NASCAR. Jeffrey Earnhardt comes from a legendary family of racers, and we are most honored that he has stepped up to help us defend the Constitution. He brings great credit to his family and to his sport by doing this, and he deserves our full support. All donations go directly to getting this car on the track. It will take $30,000.00 to get it done, but I am confident that with your help, we can do it. This is the first of what we hope will be many races run with an Oath Keepers car. The potential exposure is in the tens of millions. This could help make Oath Keepers a household name, and help to spread our message about the oath to millions of Americans who may not yet be fully awake to the ongoing assault on our Bill of Rights, and the rapidly increasing destruction of our Republic. You know how late the hour is. Help us awaken the “Sleeping Giant.” And besides, just imagine Mark Potok’s face when he sees this car on the track. Priceless! - For the Republic, Stewart Rhodes (U.S. Army Airborne disabled Veteran, Yale Law graduate, and Founder of Oath Keepers).
…Two of the most vocal critics were law enforcement, Sheriff Dean Wilson of Del Norte County and Sheriff John D’Agostini of El Dorado County. Both sheriffs slammed the measures, claiming that they’d be utterly ineffective at reducing violent crime or preventing future mass shootings.
“These types of actions that we’re recommending today do nothing to take action against the things we’re trying to fight,” Wilson told the committee. “You are making criminals out of decent citizens, hard-working people. As sheriff, these are laws that I will not enforce, will never enforce.”
Sheriff D’Agostini doubled down on Wilson’s remarks.
“It’s going to do absolutely nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing, to curb violent crime with firearms,” said Sheriff D’Agostini.
The fact that California law enforcement is at odds with the senate Democrats on gun control actually mirrors a nationwide trend. In other states that have enacted tougher gun laws in recent months – Colorado and New York – police unions have openly stated their frustration and unease with the new legislation.
Aside from the sheriffs, Rob Young, a school-shooting survivor from the 1989 mass shooting at Stockton that left five people dead also argued that the proposals would only hurt law-abiding gun owners.
“Criminals do not play by the rules,” said Young. “They can care less about restrictions, assault weapons bans or current gun laws.”…
Oath Keepers to Muster on Lexington Battle Green, MA on April 19, 2013: Stewart Rhodes Will Conduct Oath Renewal Ceremony
Captain John Parker: “Stand Your Ground. Do Not Fire Unless Fired Upon. But If They Mean To Have A War, Let It Begin Here.”
Oath Keepers will be mustering on Lexington Green, in Lexington Massachusetts, this April 19, 2013! Stewart Rhodes, Founder of Oath Keepers, has been invited to speak at a rally being held on the Green by the Massachusetts chapter of Gun Rights Across America. The organizers of the rally have also extended an invitation to all Oath Keepers to attend the rally and take part in honoring our fallen heroes of the first battle of the American Revolution, and in taking a stand in defense of our right to bear arms.
At the conclusion of Stewart’s speech, he will lead the audience in an oath renewal ceremony.
EVENT UPDATE: Pastor Chuck Baldwin (Oath Keepers National Chaplain) will speak at both the Lexington Battle Green event, and at the later rally in West Springfield, Massachusetts. He is a dynamic speaker, and will add tremendously to both events.
Here are the details on the Lexington gathering:
Gun Rights Across America “Muster on the Battle Green” Rally.
Lexington Battle Green, Lexington, Massachusetts
APRIL 19, 2013
12pm to 4pm
From Gun Rights Across America: Massachusetts:
Gun Rights Across America: Massachusetts, cordially invites one and all to attend our Pro-Second Amendment Rally.
Please join on us on April 19th, from Noon to 4:00pm, on the Lexington Battle Green, in Lexington MA. for the “Muster on the Battle Green” rally.
We will have many keynote speakers to charge the rally. We want our elected officials to hear the voice of the majority, the law abiding, Constitution loving Patriots.
Tell one and all that we will be rallying on the Battle Green that changed America forever. Where the famous “Shot Heard ‘Round the World” occured. It’s time to call on the ghosts of our ancestors and forefathers to engergize us into continuing the good fight to protect our 2A rights.
Like and share this, lets make this a rally to be remembered!
Please remember concealed carry only. No open cary of any type of firearms.
Pastor Chuck Baldwin, the Oath Keepers National Chaplain, will also be speaking. Larry Pratt, of Gun Owners of America, has also been invited, and we are waiting on confirmation that he can make it. Other speakers are being lined up now.
Please note that there will also be an additional rally on April 19th 3 – 7 PM, at the West Springfield Town Common, West Springfield, Massachusetts, conducted by Massachusetts Oath Keepers (see below for details).
NOTE FROM STEWART:
Oath Keepers, I never expected to have another chance to stand on Lexington Battle Green and conduct an oath renewal ceremony, like we did back on April 19, 2009 (which is listed as our official birth-date and place, as an org). But here we are, in 2013 and we have been handed yet another opportunity to do something remarkable, yet again. Hat’s off to Stephen Redfern of Gun Rights Across America, Massachusetts for jumping through all the hoops to get the permit to use the Green, and for inviting us to participate.
If you missed the chance to stand on the Lexington Battle Green in 2009 and renew your oath, you now have that chance, this April 19. And if you can make it, I urge you to do so (we apologize for the short notice, but that really couldn’t be helped).
I can tell you that it is a very moving, powerful experience to stand on the exact spot where Captain Parker and his men stood, where patriot blood watered the tree of Liberty, and the “shot heard round the world” was fired on April 19, 1775. And even more powerful to do so on the anniversary of that battle, April 19, and to then stand on that “venerable spot” and renew your oath to defend the Constitution – a truly amazing, once in a lifetime kind of experience.
When we conducted an oath renewal ceremony on the Battle Green in 2009, we were not doing something novel that had never been done before. To the contrary, we were following in the footsteps of men of the Founding generation who had also stood on Lexington Battle Green in 1798 to renew their oaths. Men of the First Brigade of the Third Division, Militia of Massachusetts – some who had fought in the battle back in 1775, along with their sons who now served in the militia – stood on Lexington Battle Green in formation and renewed their oaths, and then sent a proclamation to President John Adams, describing what they had done, and why. It is President Adams’ formal, written response that we quote on the back of our green “Lexington” shirt:
Oaths in this country are as yet universally considered as sacred obligations. That which you have taken and so solemnly repeated on that venerable spot, is an ample pledge of your sincerity and devotion to your country and its government. – President John Adams
The men of the Militia of Massachusetts had felt compelled to gather on the Battle Green and renew their oaths in a time of crisis in America, during the Quis-War with France, when many Americans were very divided politically, and passions were high. The men considered it essential that in that time of crisis they should come together and make it clear that their loyalty was first, and foremost, to the Constitution they swore to defend. And it should be noted that similar oath renewal ceremonies were conducted in multiple states, and by both Federalists and by Jeffersonian Republicans. Americans of both political parties renewed their oaths.
So, when we stood on Lexington Battle Green on April 19, 2009, to renew our oaths, we were merely honoring our forefathers and walking almost directly in their footsteps. And from that day forward we have conducted similar oath renewal ceremonies wherever we gather, as Oath Keepers.
It came as no surprise (a sad sign of the times) that immediately after our muster on April 19, 2009, we were viciously attacked by the radical left, and in particular by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Apparently, current serving and retired police and military are not supposed to renew their commitment to defend the Constitution, and specify certain things we will not do if ordered. The radical left considers that dangerous. Instead, according to them, we who are still serving have a duty to “just follow orders” and do whatever we are told to do. And the very existence of this organization, devoted to sincere keeping of oaths, and the improvement of constitutional knowledge among the current serving and veterans, is considered “dangerous” by the Marxists on the far left. So be it. We expected it.
But oddly enough, we have also at times been criticized by people on the Right for conducting oath renewal ceremonies, with some of them asserting we are asking people to take some additional oath, to Oath Keepers, or that we are being foolishly redundant. I have heard some say “I already took the oath, so why are they taking it all over again?” They are, of course, free to do as they please, but they display their ignorance of our own history when they condemn us for doing exactly the same thing the Founding Generation and their sons did back in 1798. Again, a sad sign of the times.
I invite you to join me on the Battle Green, on April 19, 2013, and renew your oath on that venerable spot, and by doing so, help revive and expand, and make it once again true, that fundamental requirement that “Oaths in this country are as yet universally considered as sacred obligations.“ We know that among the political class in this country, that is certainly not the case, but we can make it so among the warrior class – among our brothers-in-arms. And by doing so, we can change history. Let us lead by example.
And let us also revive the tradition of showing honor and respect to our war heroes of 1775, by making April 19 a day of remembrance and celebration for their having the courage and sense of duty to take up arms, in resistance, against tyranny. Let us honor them. April 19 – Patriots Day – SHOULD be celebrated across the land, just as solemnly and energetically as we celebrate Veterans Day or Independence Day. Let us make it so.
If you cannot join us, this April 19, on Lexington Battle Green or at the following rally by Massachusetts, then hold a gathering of remembrance and celebration wherever you are this April 19. Hold a rally if you can. But even if it is just you and a few friends at the shooting range, or having beers in a pub, take a moment to remember the men who stood their ground and only fired when fired upon, and their brothers who turned the tide at Concord Bridge, and then chased the bloody Regulars back to Boston, with their tails between their legs. Say a toast to them, give them a cheer, and then pledge to each other your mutual commitment to make sure that all their sacrifice was not in vain, and that you will do your part to keep alive the Sacred Fire of Liberty.
As you know, this nation is now following almost exactly in the same footsteps our Forefathers experienced in the lead-up to the American Revolution. Like them, we have suffered a long train of abuses, and our backs have been pushed up against the wall. Let us look for strength and courage by remembering their example, and by seeing clearly how we are standing in an unbroken line of defenders of liberty, that began at Lexington and Concord, and stretches through history to us here, today.
It is our watch now. Let us pray to God for the fortitude to do as they did, to defend home and liberty, at all costs, when our moment comes.
For the Republic!
Founder of Oath Keepers
ANNOUNCEMENT OF MASSACHUSETTS OATH KEEPERS RALLY ON APRIL 19, 2013, from 4pm to 7pm
Press release: For Immediate Release
Contact: Bryan Doe 413-348-7190
Date/Time: Friday, April 19th 3 – 7 PM
Location: West Springfield Town Common, West Springfield, Massachusetts
Local group announces Rally to Support Second Amendment
A local group has organized a rally in support of the Second Amendment. The Massachusetts Chapter of Oath Keepers will hold a rally on the West Springfield Town Common on Friday, April 19th from 3 to 7 pm. This event is free and open to the public.
The rally is being held in reaction to hastily passed and poorly written laws and proposals proven to have no effect on criminals and public safety, infringe on the Second Amendment, and turn law-abiding citizens into criminals, according to the event organizers.
For more information, contact
This comes from the folks at The Daily Sheeple. Just another way to deprive us of guns and to control us. – Shorty Dawkins, Associate Editor
by Eric Peters
It took “conservative” Republicans to trot out mandatory and market-based health insurance in the same mouthful. Don’t ever forget to thank them for this.
Well, it’s time for the next step: Mandatory gun insurance - also “market based” and “incentivized,” of course.
Here it comes, directly from one of the insurance Mafia’s chief consiglieres, Robert Hartwig. He is president of something called the Insurance Information Institute – which is an outfit funded by the insurance Mafia for the purpose of spewing propaganda favorable to the insurance Mafia and to wheedle for more laws that extort fresh “customers” for the insurance Mafia:
Mandatory gun insurance, he says, would “. . . (cover) individuals whose person or property was in some way injured or damaged as a result of the use of a firearm.”
What Hartwig avoids mentioning is the guns that will be pointed at gun owners who decline to be “covered.”
But why would anyone decline such a valuable “service”?
Perhaps so that they can afford to keep the gun. Or even buy one in the first place.
And here we come to the true object of this enterprise: To make the legal ownership of guns progressively more expensive, so that within a period of years, very few people except the affluent elites (and eventually, perhaps not even they) will be able to legally own guns. No registration – or confiscation (as such) will be needed. The public – most of it – will be disarmed via being priced out of the “market” using “incentives” provided by the insurance Mafia.
Or they will be criminalized – by the government – for not having bought the required insurance. Exactly as has been done already to car owners who fail to purchase the required insurance. And will soon be done to people who fail to purchase the required health insurance.
It’s quite brilliant, really.
The Mafia would “reward” gun owners who own fewer guns – and levy surcharges upon those who own “too many” guns – or guns deemed “too powerful” or “excessive,” such as those of a certain caliber, or which have magazines that hold “too many” bullets. Conceal carry? Higher risk – you pay more.
It will work in exactly in the same way that the insurance Mafia has made owning powerful cars and motorcycles – especially more than one – financially untenable for most average people. Gun owners who do not keep their guns stored unloaded and /or locked up – and therefore, largely useless for home defense - will be surcharged into penury. And just as the insurance Mafia is already pushing hard for in-car monitors for drivers, so also will the insurance Mafia push for random checks or in-home monitoring for gun owners – to “make sure” the guns are “kept safe.” Either accept these terms and conditions – or give up your guns.
Or, become an outlaw – subject to potentially years in prison if they ever find out you failed to comply.
Every gun owner will be strongly “incentivized” to become a good little Clover – to do as he is told.
And most will.