Archive for category OathKeepers
Posted by ocoathkeepers in 10 Orders We Will Not Obey, 2nd Amendment, Bill of Rights, CA Oath Keepers, California Sheriffs’ Posse Call & Fundraiser, Constitution, County Sheriff, County Sheriff Project, CSPOA, Declaration of Orders We Will Not Obey, Gun Laws, gun-control laws, Guns, Honor Your Oath, Martial Law, NDAA, NDAA 2013, Nullification, Nullify Now, OATH BREAKERS, Oath Keepers, Oath Keepers Billboard Campaign, Oath Keepers of San Diego, Oath of Office, OathKeepers, Operation Sleeping Giant, Orange County, Orange County CA Oath Keepers, Politics, Rallys/Protests, Shall Not Be Infringed, Sheriff, Sheriff Mack, Stewart Rhodes, Traitors, TSA, UN’s Agenda 21, Unconstitutional, Unconstitutional Patriot Act, United States military, US firearms, US History, Veterans, War on Terror, World’s Largest Private Army on February 9, 2013
Stewart Rhodes, Chuck Shea, and John Oetken will be gathering with the Oath Keepers in the area to formalize a Northern California Chapter. Please get the word out and spread this information and share the picture.
We will also be fundraising for the Oath Keeper Billboards to put up near Beale AFB California.
Posted by ocoathkeepers in Alt-Market, Cultural Shift, Economy, End The Fed, End The Fed Now, Liberty Movement, Moral Relativism, OathKeepers, Occupy The Fed, Occupy The Fed Now, Operation Sleeping Giant, Politics, Prepardeness and Survival, Restore the Republic, Sound Money, When Law Becomes Tyranny on October 21, 2011
Breaking Points: Recognizing The Signs Of Painful Cultural Shift
Saturday, 15 October 2011
By Brandon Smith
Through the ages, nations and cultures of spectacular proportion and prominence have risen to prosperity, and fallen to chaos, on very particular and fundamental principles. In some cases, these great and terrible declines have taken centuries to culminate (as was the story of the Roman Empire), and only a few years in others (the Soviet Union comes to mind). In every example of societal destabilization, however, there were many signs of danger long before the final plunge; some unique to each particular culture, and some common to all. One of the most enduring and frightening similarities between crumbling nations is an overwhelming belief amongst the people that they have somehow “advanced” beyond the need for concern. Each self-destructing society presumed itself invincible. Each country thought itself the pinnacle of human potential, only to discover yet again that in abandoning or subverting the principles of freedom, and the bedrock pillars of conscience, reason, and wisdom, they had become merely another footnote in a long marathon of footnotes.
Ultimately, the vast and sordid history of collapse could be summarized simply as a series of breaking points; moments at which opposing ideals and forces hyperextend the prevailing mechanics of a system, changing it entirely.
Some of these events have produced surprising strides of understanding and political progress, as prevailed after the American Revolution. Others led to dark and mindless collectivist nightmares that fog men’s eyes and hearts, as that which occurred after the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. The difference is one of focus. Imperialist (elitist) ideologies were deemed unacceptable in both revolutions, but the tides of each conflict leaned towards entirely separate values. Individual liberty in the West, and collective safety and sacrifice in the East. In America, the uprising was led by common men and the target was clear. In Russia, the uprising was led by elitists posing as common men, and the target was obscured. In America, much of the public assumed roles as arbiters and political engineers. In communist Russia, much of the public was oblivious to such responsibility, and only subject to engineering. Two revolutions in the name of ending tyranny with two entirely different initial outcomes…
I bring up these opposing paradigms not to spark another endless debate over the merits of communism versus capitalism, but to highlight a growing potential for a new brand of revolution in modern day America, now cutting through the surface, which may very well culminate in one of the two finales described above. More perhaps than any other time memorable, centralist and statist visions are today clashing with individualist and Constitutionalist pleadings for sanity. The air grows heavy and ripe for ignition. More even than any economic indicator, social indicators point in the direction of conflict and widespread malfunction. The question of “if” in terms of citizen dissent and the inevitable lashing response of government is no longer asked. Now, the question of “when” has risen to the surface.
To predict the exact timing of a breaking point is impossible, but there are signals to watch for; social and political attitudes to monitor and examine. After analyzing the shifts of multiple nations and cultures over thousands of years of human record, a pattern does, indeed, emerge. Similar developments in our times should not be taken lightly…
1) The Rise Of Moral Relativism
Inherent conscience is a vital artery to a healthy society. When that artery is cut, entire structures and peoples die. There is no way around this, as history has shown. Cynics, often utilizing a highly limited understanding of the processes of mass psychology and individual psychology, tend to confuse the word “conscience” with the concept of taboo. Taboos are man-made morals, and are commonly applied as a method of social control by oligarchs and collectives, just as many laws are created to appease sometimes dubious bureaucracies. Conscience is NOT man-made, but an inborn process that human beings draw from unconsciously, and which true honor, compassion, and sincerity are derived. Conscience is an intuitive product, not intellectual.
Moral relativism, by comparison, is a kind of emotional inhibitor which allows people to mechanize their thinking, and rationalize any activity no matter how despicable, as long as that activity is rooted in a “logical” framework. Logic, however, is limited…
Interestingly, there are some forms of theoretical mathematics which allow false conclusions to be presented as fact, and this same methodology of fuzzy logic is consistently used by moral relativists to achieve the “appearance” of reason. At bottom, intellectual prowess accomplishes little without the disciplines of experience, emotion, and insight. Cultures which widely abandon the guidelines of conscience always find themselves subject to collapse, whether economic or political. Without the ability to feel empathy for the victims of one’s actions, any disaster becomes possible.
2) The Displacement Of Cultural Subsections
A society that maintains healthy appearances by purposely displacing and marginalizing certain belief systems or political stances is by its very nature self-destructive. For progress to be made, inclusion of ideas is paramount. Ideas must be allowed to stand on their own merit and not be victimized by the biases of an elite minority, or in some instances, an ignorant majority. Strong and meaningful ideas must be given space to thrive while bad ideas must be allowed to fall to the wayside. This happens when open discussion is given fair play. Suppression of discussion, whether by force or by stealth, leads to an inability of the people to form a true identity. Forced consensus ends not in stability, but in madness.
3) Distraction Over Substance
Distracted people are uncaring people. A nation distracted by its own immediate desires over the concerns of the future is completely incapable of acting in its own best interest. Distraction comes in many forms, from vapid entertainment, to disinformation, to war and economic uncertainty. While most people are more than able to produce their own distractions, often governments will lend a helping hand in order to dissuade the masses from participation in the decision making processes. This includes the dilution of educational options and/or the co-option of the educational system altogether.
You will find that in nearly every collapse of modern times, the citizenry found themselves surprised and shell shocked despite numerous and easily identifiable warnings. You will also find that the stunned populace was usually obsessed with any existing method to avoid involvement in the workings of the system in which they lived. They were caught off guard because, in the end, they were more comfortable not knowing the details. Comfort at the price of vigilance ends in devastation.
4) When Law Becomes Tyranny
Law, at least as far as the fundamentals are concerned, is designed to protect citizens as well as authorities from undue actions and accusations. At its best, law shields us from our own follies, which may include the allowed ascension of poor leadership. At its worst, law is no longer used as a tool for protecting the public from error and malice, and is instead used as a tool for enslavement.
When a culture elevates and worships law over the contents of their own consciences, the abuse of law for the sake of control is imminent. Law does not trump heart, yet many past societies have been convinced to follow immoral laws all while mistaking their actions for “civic duty”. When law becomes infallible, fallible government becomes god, and no nation will ever be able to sustain such a delusion of grandeur for very long without reaping catastrophe.
5) Force Over Reason
Force is used only in two instances within a domestic political environment; when a controlling entity seeks to acquire or maintain power after fear and disinformation have failed, and when a rebellious public seeks to undo the wrongs done and reason has gone ignored. A nation run by dishonest men is already a supreme candidate for extreme collapse, but when despots turn to violent policies to silence dissent, you can be sure that conflict is soon to follow. The level of this tension will be readily visible in the militant presence of the government in public buildings, on the roads, and even in the neighborhoods of the citizenry. A standing army upon the soil of a country, regardless of supposed rationale, is a recipe for a breakdown that goes far beyond the more manageable effects of financial distress and into the realm of lasting and vicious war.
6) False Paradigms And Mistaken Enemies
A country near bedlam is usually filled with people seeking not just answers, but someone, anyone, to blame. This need for “justice” can be very misguided, and results in the projections of our own terrors onto innocent bystanders. Collapse is very often preceded by a swelling wave of attacks, usually directed at groups contrary to the majority belief. Political parties become factions. Ideals become battle cries. Fervor for retribution takes over. All the while, the true culprits (who are normally not a part of either side) sit back, relax, and turn the public in on itself. A frantic nation is an easily manipulated nation. Divided and fragile, such systems degrade while the source of the problem remains hidden.
7) Desperation And Loss Of Will
A culture on the verge of sliding into full spectrum disintegration is generally not very chipper, however, when this despair results in the handing over of personal liberty for the sake of so called “security”, an avalanche of regret and wild compensation in the form of moral relativism results. No matter what the state of a nation and its people, the will to move forward and to act for the betterment of the future can and does change everything. The blackest days of dread and ill omen are no match for man’s ability to endure when he holds the truth dear. No obstacle is insurmountable. No enemy unbeatable. But, when that will is lost, so too is everything else.
The concentration and frequency of the above elements can easily reveal the point at which a country is in respect to collapse. America now has many of these diseases at one stage or another, and in certain ways, has surpassed historic examples to form a never-before-seen dynamic for global turmoil. Currently, citizens are turning in greater and greater numbers to activism and protest, but the focus has moved away from the elites (central bankers and globalists) who deserve the largest portion of the public’s ire. We have allowed deflections to go unchecked for too long, and the unwillingness of arbitrarily delineated sides (false Left and false Right) to reconcile at least until the larger threat is removed is setting our culture in motion into the depths of a nightmare we are not ready to handle. Such loss has happened before, and, through courage, understanding, and tenacity, it has also been undone before. The choice is ours. It always has been.
Want to protect your savings from financial collapse? BUY GOLD
For information of Occupy The Fed events across the country, visit http://www.OccupyTheFedNow.com
To contribute to the growth of the Safe Haven Project, and to help us help others in relocating, or to support the creation of barter networks across the country, visit our donate page here:
Please visit a newly created site that is supported and created by Oath Keepers and many other Liberty groups around the nation called Occupy The Fed Now.
The groups involved, interacting and collaborating are:
- End The Fed
- Oath Keepers
- Occupy Fed Now Boston
- Operation Sleeping Giant
- Prison Planet TV
- Restore the Republic (RTR.org)
- Tenth Amendment Center
- Truth Squad TV
- We Are Change
What this site is about:
The Primary Pillars Of ‘Occupy The Fed Now’
1) ‘Occupy The Fed Now’ is a non-partisan movement dedicated to transparency and accountability in Central Banking, corporate activity, as well as government. Our foremost purpose is to fully support the utilization of the First Amendment to the Constitution and the right of any American, regardless of their economic, political, religious, or social beliefs to redress grievances publically, and peacefully, while also defending the Constitution by directing attention to the primary sources of the ongoing destruction of our country. We are NOT a counter-movement in opposition to Occupy Wall Street. While we do not agree with many of the specific conclusions or solutions presented by some Occupy Wall Street activists, we do not seek to antagonize or interfere with them. We only seek to share the vast knowledge we have collected over many years of analysis on the true nature of the financial troubles surrounding us, as well as the true culprits behind their appearance. Ultimately, we hope to make all protestors against economic corruption aware of the root source of the current fiscal crisis; the privately controlled Federal Reserve Bank, as well as the central banking authorities of many other nations around the world.
2) We reject notions promoted by the mainstream media that the Wall Street protests (and spin-offs) are driven entirely by a “socialist uprising” or “Liberal Tea Party.” Such arbitrary talking points we believe are an attempt to co-opt and divide people into false factions of “Left” and “Right.” A 99% majority of American citizens no longer have a legitimate voice let alone any tangible influence over the decisions made by government today, and that 99% includes ALL political orientations, whether conservative or liberal, independent, libertarian, etc. Over 80% of the American public, for instance, stood in vehement opposition to bailout programs initiated by the Federal Reserve which rewarded the thievery of criminal banking cartels while punishing taxpayers. Our enemy is the same no matter what “side of the aisle” we might stand. This movement must transcend preconceived notions and political ideologies and focus upon what is most important; freedom, and the truth, no matter where it may lead us.
3) Occupy The Fed Now stands in opposition to any system which relies on centralization of power into the hands of an elite few in order administer the functions of government and society to the detriment of the common citizen. This is exactly the kind of system we have today, with the Federal Reserve as the core facilitator, and it is a complete affront to the principles and laws of liberty which founded this country. Wall Street and the corporations that dwell within are merely the peripheral vestiges of a much greater problem, and any movement which targets only Wall Street, we believe, is overlooking the source of our country’s ailments. Instead of endlessly battling the external symptoms, we must counter and extinguish the disease itself.
4) We feel that because America has not lived under a true capitalist free market system (in the Adam Smith sense) for at least a century, accusations that the methodology of Capitalism is to blame for our all our current ills are unfounded. In fact, it has been the steady destruction of Capitalism and free markets since 1913 (when the Federal Reserve was founded) by the monopolies and duopolies inherent in Corporatism that has wreaked havoc upon our nation and our economy. Corporatism is inherently destructive of free markets, and is designed to remove options and competition from a system, rather than encouraging the creation of new choices and better ways of doing things. Occupy The Fed Now wishes to encourage the return of free markets and individual entrepreneurship while diminishing or completely removing the powers of the corporate system, including the protections of limited liability as well as legal categorization as “persons” that corporations have used for so long to dodge responsibility for their unlawful actions
5) Occupy The Fed Now is calling for the complete dissolution of the private Federal Reserve and the end of its domination of the creation of currency within the U.S. We oppose all monetary systems based on the spread of “fiat” (paper or digital money printed or generated out of thin air and backed by no tangible assets). Private banks and unaccountable bankers and global financiers should NEVER be given the authority to shift and manipulate our sovereign economic system at will, yet this is exactly how the Federal Reserve is run, and that is exactly what it does. All Fed accounts including its foreign transactions and holdings should be subjected to a FULL audit, and all debts that are owed to the Fed by the American government and by default the American taxpayer should be repudiated. The power to coin money must be taken away from the central bank and returned to the U.S. Treasury, as is authorized by the U.S. Constitution.
6) We believe solutions to economic crisis include the return of sound money, or money backed by tangible assets, instead of debt. Legislation which allows states and communities to have their own competing sound currencies would nurture an environment of financial choice, as well as spur a new era of business creativity. Government intrusions into the personal lives of citizens, as well as the institution of vast bureaucratic obstacles, to the advantage of corporations and to the detriment of the individual, must be eliminated. States must take back 10th Amendment reserved powers that have been worn away over the decades and reassert control over their own economies and internal politics. Globalization and centralization must be replaced with Localization backed by decentralized markets controlled by the people. Average Americans must take back their local economies and supplant corporate control by building alternative systems of trade, including barter markets, sound money networks, and local business organizations and co-ops. In order to defeat a corrupt system, we must first stop participating in that system, and then, build one of our own that services the needs of the people instead of the establishment, while working to dismantle and repeal the false, corrupt, unconstitutional fiat system.
7) Occupy The Fed Now is not a militant organization, nor a vehicle for “domestic terrorism” though government rhetoric has turned towards branding peaceful activist organizations like ours as such recently. We are not affiliated with the Republican or Democratic parties, nor will we be co-opted by either. We are “extremists” only in that we absolutely refuse to compromise on the truth. Our desire is to ensure a better future, if not for ourselves, then at least for our children. We will not rest or yield until this is accomplished. The window of opportunity to prevent outright economic and social catastrophe, we believe, is swiftly closing. We must act immediately if we hope to secure a positive outcome for our country, our Constitution, and our culture. There is no later, there is only now…
Please Visit and Subscribe: Occupy The Fed Now.
Report RE: Occupy LA from John Oetken October 9th, 2011.
Oath Keepers is not endorsing the OccupyWS movement. We are for engaging people of all persuasions, races, religions, philosophies, movements, careers, political parties, etc., to look to the Constitution for answers and to get any and all who have taken the oath to choose to honor their oath to the Constitution and to the people. Oath Keepers is non-partisan….it is about the Constitution…every issue, every time, no exceptions, no excuses.
At Occupy Los Angeles there are many who are young and old and many newly awakened and rightfully upset about what is happening in this country. Many know in general that we are screwed by the banks, politicians, bailouts, TARP, etc. (hmm, sounds like original tea party themes, doesn’t it?), but many are really unaware about the real problems going on which are orchestrated by the puppet masters who control the Federal Reserve, World Bank, and IMF. Do we want to just let the socialist and collectivist types speak with these people and buy into their “anti-capitalist” spin on it? Or should we engage in the field of battle and try to steer them to the truth and the Constitution which is the solution?
We were at Occupy LA yesterday and last Saturday. We know people that have been there throughout the entire event even camping out. We did not experience nor see the behavior that is being emphasized by the media at Occupy Wall Street in NY. Such behavior could have happened in LA but we did not see it. In fact, the LAPD is not acting like the NYPD either. We met all sorts of people there. There were people who were “communist” types, and we knew that going in, but honestly they were in the minority of people we met. Should I have been afraid of meeting a communist there and debating the issues? What is there to be afraid of? If I met a committed communist or socialist, I did not spend too much time with them, since the majority there were not committed. Many we met have recently realized that the left/right paradigm is false, and it does not matter which “party” anyone is in…most have been bought off and are corrupt including Obama and Bush before him.
The real story and interaction, particularly in LA , is not being reported by the corporate controlled media….just like how they selectively reported about the tea party and their protests. The puppet masters and their controlled mainstream media don’t want Americans from “all sides” to speak with each other….they want us polarized, hateful, and to speak past each other. That is by design from both “sides.” If the real American people actually started to communicate and did not let the establishment on all sides take control of the narrative, those same puppet masters and establishment would be threatened. And they are running scared….look how hard they are screaming about how terrible all these people are….just like they painted the tea parties. And the professional “left” is trying to hijack the movement just like the professional “right” hijacked the tea parties.
On the positive side, there were a lot of End The Fed signs and liberty patriots at OLA. Out of hundreds of people there, I am thinking hard, but did not see but maybe one or two Obama signs….and I was looking for them. There were some Che signs and shirts…and we would just let our friend Alicia, whose parents escaped Cuba, go talk to them….and I feel sorry for them after Alicia got done with shaming them in a nice and educational way. Many we met were awakening and know there are problems…now we have given them information and evidence about where the real problems stem from and possible solutions. Also there were patriots from many different walks of life and organizations there with one who had a table with a sign that said “ask a capitalist”. Wow….more open dialog to get the truth out and an exchange of ideas. Now that is “dangerous” don’t you think?
We passed out over 400 dvd’s which focused on the Constitution, real free market capitalism vs monopoly capitalism, exposing collectivism, exposing the Federal Reserve and the Wall Street corruption. We custom made these compilation dvd’s and produced them ourselves and put in a sheet which tells about the facts about The Federal Reserve. We are giving these people an alternative to find the truth and not buy anyone’s story but encourage them to think on their own. We also passed out scores of pocket Constitutions and Oath Keepers information.
Is this going to be easy? No. But it has been inspiring to see the reaction and the many people who were thankful we were there. It was non-stop people coming up to those of us in Oath Keepers shirts and hats and thanking us for being there and engaging us in conversation. And asking us to be sure to engage any police to be sure they kept their oath. Many agreed that the media is painting this one way and not telling the complete story.
I ask everyone who wants to make a judgement to go out there for yourself and see for yourself. Don’t just look for the “bad” but also look for the people open to the truth. Go engage and take the field for there are many ripe minds who need and want to hear the truth. Don’t be confrontational nor get baited by those who want to be confrontational. Just engage in civil dialog and move on to the next person.
The following was on the cover of the dvd we were passing out and it is advice which we have not heeded and the result that is coming true…for all the American people.
“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency…the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.”
– Thomas Jefferson, (Attributed)
3rd president of US (1743 – 1826)
Note from Elias Alias:
I am going to use two separate postings to get the whole book into our site, for the book is a bit too long to fit into one textbox here. Part Two is here:
As prelude, we’ll look at some of the bio details of General Smedley Butler’s career and also read from one of his speeches from the 1930s.
In 1966 I traveled down from the 3RD Marine Air Wing headquarters at El Toro, California, to San Diego, California, where I joined my new outfit to go overseas to Viet Nam. I was attached to a Marine Air Support Squadron, which was a high-tech field-ready mobile headquarters for coordinating jet air strikes and bombing runs. We went over the pond on an old LST (Landing Ship, Tank) named the USS Jennings County. Between San Diego and Chu Lai, RVN, the Jennings County stopped for extended visits at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii; Naha Harbor, Okinawa; and Subic Bay, Philippine Islands.
While at Naha Harbor, Okinawa, I took a ride out to a US Marine Corps base, which Marines referred to as “Camp Butler”. It was a modern Marine Corps base, actually, with hospital facilities. The base was named for Major General Smedley D. Butler, USMC. While my visit to Camp Butler was simply as a tourist, I would return there almost a year later to spend some time in the hospital there.
So I was at Camp Smedley Butler twice during the 1960s. At the beginning of a new millennium in the year 2000 I would learn something about the General for whom that base had been named. It seems that General Smedley D. Butler was one of the two greatest Marines in the entirety of the United States Marine Corps’ history. He was rivaled only by General Chesty Puller.
However, General Butler did something after he retired from the USMC, something which the Pentagon and War Hawks of the military-industrial complex today would prefer we do not know. He wrote a book. It was a little book, but it was a very damning little book. The book’s title is “War Is A Racket”. Moreover, he followed publication of the book by touring the nation giving speeches on its subject matter.
I am going to share that book with Oath Keepers here and now, with a personal invitation to each reader here to consider somberly what General Butler wrote, and see if it applies to the United States, our military adventures abroad, our foreign policy, and the military industrial complex which another famous General cautioned us about just a few years before I quit college and volunteered to join the Marines and go to Viet Nam. (1965)
There are numerous postings of General Butler’s book online. The book is also available in hard-copy for readers who enjoy collecting actual books for their homes. Thank you for reading War Is A Racket by General Smedley Darlington Butler, holder of two Congressional Medals of Honor and author of the most damning confession ever written by any retired U.S. military General. We’ll begin with a bit of bio.
Smedley Darlington Butler was born at West Chester, PA on July 30, 1881. Over his parents objections, at the age of 16 he left home and enlisted as a Marine. He was commissioned a Second Lieutenant in 1898, just 38 days short of his 17th birthday. He was promoted to Brevet Captain for his heroic action during the Boxer Rebellion in China in 1900. Thus began a career that lasted 33 years and saw him become one of only two Marines ever to hold double awards of the Navy issue Medal of Honor.
Bearing a tattoo of the Marine Corps emblem which covered his entire chest, April of 1898 saw Butler, a newly promoted First Lieutenant, in the Philippines exchanging “Professional military courtesies” with the insurgent Moros during the Philippine Insurrection.
Less than a year later, serving under Major L.W.T. Waller, Butler was combating the Chinese I Ho Ch’uan, (Virtuous, Harmonious Fists) commonly known as the “Boxers.” This group, attacking Chinese Christians and slaughtering missionaries, was embarked upon a pillaging and rioting spree with the plan of ousting Westerners from the Western enclaves. With the tacit approval of the Chinese Imperial Government during the month of June, approximately 140,000 violent Boxers seized the capital city of Peking and laid siege to the foreign Legations.
As part of the multinational relief force sent to break the siege, Butler and his Marines attacked the blocking city of Tientsen. Fighting his way over the wall Butler opened the gates allowing the entrance of the rest of the attacking forces. During this battle the Marine Officer was wounded twice, yet continued to fight and evacuated other wounded Marines while subjected to vicious enemy fire.
It was during this action that Butler was awarded one of the rarest of American decorations for valor, the Marine Corps Brevet Medal. Awarded to Marine Officers who displayed bravery under fire, (At this time officers were not authorized the Medal of Honor.) only twenty two of these medals were ever issued.
A stalwart leader, while commanding a small detachment of Marines aboard the USS Panther in 1903, the now Captain Butler rescued the U.S. Consular agent from rebels in Honduras. Not even malaria could keep this Marine down. Between 1909 and 1912 he was in Nicaragua enforcing American policy. With a fever of 104 degrees he once led his battalion to the relief of a rebel besieged Nicaraguan city of Grenada.
1914, As a result of an international incident involving a party of Americans ashore from the USS Dolphin in the Mexican city of Tampico, President Wilson and the U.S. Congress retaliated by authorizing the use of military force against Mexico, “…to maintain the dignity and authority of the United States,…” And so began the battle of Vera Cruz. On April 21 Admiral F.E. Fletcher sailed into the harbor of Vera Cruz with a squadron of warships and a regiment of U.S. Marines.
Again, Butler was in the thick of it. The Admiral dispatched Butler on a secret reconnaissance of Mexico City, in the event that a rescue mission for American citizens became necessary. Butler, using several disguises, made it in and out with the information which Fletcher required. He also made it back in time to command his Marine battalion in two days of house to house fighting.
It was here that Butler won his first Medal of Honor. Awarded on Dec. 1915, the citation reads, “For distinguished conduct in command of his battalion. He exhibited courage and skill in leading his men through the action of the 22nd and in the final occupation of the city.”
Haiti in 1915 was again in a dangerous state of political upheaval, and at 5:50 pm on July 28, two companies of Marines and three sailors landed in Haiti. Thus what would become a long involvement between Haiti and the U.S. Marines began. An involvement which, off and on has continued to the present day. As the occupation of this small Caribbean country began, so too did the events which would bring Butler his second Medal of Honor.
The Marines and sailors under Admiral Caperton rapidly reestablished order and an interim government. Police, customs, schools and hospitals were all placed under the purview of the Marines and Naval personnel assigned to the occupation. Roads were built or improved, cities and towns were were refurbished.
The Marines established a law enforcing constabulary, officered by Marine NCO’s who were granted Haitian commissions as officers and leaders of native troops. This group, called the Gendarmerie d’Haiti, was tasked with enforcing all laws of the country and provided a quasi military force. They were backed by the Krag-Jorgensen rifles of the 1st Marine Brigade with 88 Officers and 1941 men garrisoning ten towns.
But even all the improvements in the standard of living in this corrupt country did not settle a group of rebels called the Cacos. On the northern end of the country, skirmishing continued in the villages and jungled mountains. (It was during this same period that Gunnery Sergeant Daniel J. Daly, the other Marine to hold two Navy issue Medals of Honor, won his second award of this highest American decoration.)
In the dark of the night on Nov. 17 1915, Butler, leading a strong force of Marines and sailors surrounded the last stronghold of the Cacos. Fort Riviere, on a mountain to the south of Grand Riviere du Nord. At 07:30 am, Butler gave a signal on a whistle and all the Marines attacked. The surprise was total and the Cacos were taken in confusion. Crawling through a tunnel. Butler and his men were involved in bloody hand to hand fighting. In 15 minutes, more than 50 Cacos were killed.
The citation for Butler’s second Medal of Honor reads, “As Commanding Officer of detachments from the Fifth, Thirteenth, Twenty-third Companies and Marine and Sailor detachment from USS Connecticut, Major Butler led an attack on Fort Riviere, Haiti 17 November 1915. Following a concentrated drive, several different detachments of Marines gradually closed in on the old French bastion fort in a effort to cut off all avenues of retreat for the Cacos bandits. Reaching the fort on the southern side where there was a small opening in the wall, Major Butler gave the signal to attack and Marines from the Fifteenth Company poured through the breach, engaged the Cacos in hand-to-hand combat, took the bastion and crushed Caco resistance. Throughout this perilous action, Major Butler was conspicuous for his bravery and forceful leadership.”
By 1927 Butler was again in China and upon his completion of his tour there he returned to the States in 1929 as a Major General. He was the youngest Marine ever to have been so promoted. However, as a result of a remark made by him which was not flattering about the Italian dictator Mussolini and political maneuvering by civilians unused to Butler’s direct method of action, he failed to be selected for the position of Commandant Marine Corps. By October 1931 Butler had retired form the Corps. He died in Philadelphia in 1940.
From here; link good as of August 05, 2007:
Smedley Butler on Interventionism
– Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC.
War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.
I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we’ll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.
I wouldn’t go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.
There isn’t a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its “finger men” to point out enemies, its “muscle men” to destroy enemies, its “brain men” to plan war preparations, and a “Big Boss” Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.
It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country’s most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.
I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.
I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.
During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.
War Is A Racket
from here on August 05, 2007
also in hard-copy (paperback)
War Is A Racket
by Major General Smedley Darlington Butler, USMC; copyright 1935, 2003 by the Butler Family; publisher: Feral House, P.O. Box 39910, Los Angeles, CA, 90039; www.FeralHouse.com and email@example.com ; ISBN: 0-922915-86-5.
WAR IS A RACKET
by Major General Smedley Darlington Butler, USMC
WAR IS A RACKET
WAR is a racket. It always has been.
It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.
A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small “inside” group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.
In the World War [I] a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.
How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?
Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few – the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.
And what is this bill?
This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations.
For a great many years, as a soldier, I had a suspicion that war was a racket; not until I retired to civil life did I fully realize it. Now that I see the international war clouds gathering, as they are today, I must face it and speak out.
Again they are choosing sides. France and Russia met and agreed to stand side by side. Italy and Austria hurried to make a similar agreement. Poland and Germany cast sheep’s eyes at each other, forgetting for the nonce [one unique occasion], their dispute over the Polish Corridor.
The assassination of King Alexander of Jugoslavia [Yugoslavia] complicated matters. Jugoslavia and Hungary, long bitter enemies, were almost at each other’s throats. Italy was ready to jump in. But France was waiting. So was Czechoslovakia. All of them are looking ahead to war. Not the people – not those who fight and pay and die – only those who foment wars and remain safely at home to profit.
There are 40,000,000 men under arms in the world today, and our statesmen and diplomats have the temerity to say that war is not in the making.
Hell’s bells! Are these 40,000,000 men being trained to be dancers?
Not in Italy, to be sure. Premier Mussolini knows what they are being trained for. He, at least, is frank enough to speak out. Only the other day, Il Duce in “International Conciliation,” the publication of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said:
“And above all, Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace… War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the people who have the courage to meet it.”
Undoubtedly Mussolini means exactly what he says. His well-trained army, his great fleet of planes, and even his navy are ready for war – anxious for it, apparently. His recent stand at the side of Hungary in the latter’s dispute with Jugoslavia showed that. And the hurried mobilization of his troops on the Austrian border after the assassination of Dollfuss showed it too. There are others in Europe too whose sabre rattling presages war, sooner or later.
Herr Hitler, with his rearming Germany and his constant demands for more and more arms, is an equal if not greater menace to peace. France only recently increased the term of military service for its youth from a year to eighteen months.
Yes, all over, nations are camping in their arms. The mad dogs of Europe are on the loose. In the Orient the maneuvering is more adroit. Back in 1904, when Russia and Japan fought, we kicked out our old friends the Russians and backed Japan. Then our very generous international bankers were financing Japan. Now the trend is to poison us against the Japanese. What does the “open door” policy to China mean to us? Our trade with China is about $90,000,000 a year. Or the Philippine Islands? We have spent about $600,000,000 in the Philippines in thirty-five years and we (our bankers and industrialists and speculators) have private investments there of less than $200,000,000.
Then, to save that China trade of about $90,000,000, or to protect these private investments of less than $200,000,000 in the Philippines, we would be all stirred up to hate Japan and go to war – a war that might well cost us tens of billions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of lives of Americans, and many more hundreds of thousands of physically maimed and mentally unbalanced men.
Of course, for this loss, there would be a compensating profit – fortunes would be made. Millions and billions of dollars would be piled up. By a few. Munitions makers. Bankers. Ship builders. Manufacturers. Meat packers. Speculators. They would fare well.
Yes, they are getting ready for another war. Why shouldn’t they? It pays high dividends.
But what does it profit the men who are killed? What does it profit their mothers and sisters, their wives and their sweethearts? What does it profit their children?
What does it profit anyone except the very few to whom war means huge profits?
Yes, and what does it profit the nation?
Take our own case. Until 1898 we didn’t own a bit of territory outside the mainland of North America. At that time our national debt was a little more than $1,000,000,000. Then we became “internationally minded.” We forgot, or shunted aside, the advice of the Father of our country. We forgot George Washington’s warning about “entangling alliances.” We went to war. We acquired outside territory. At the end of the World War period, as a direct result of our fiddling in international affairs, our national debt had jumped to over $25,000,000,000. Our total favorable trade balance during the twenty-five-year period was about $24,000,000,000. Therefore, on a purely bookkeeping basis, we ran a little behind year for year, and that foreign trade might well have been ours without the wars.
It would have been far cheaper (not to say safer) for the average American who pays the bills to stay out of foreign entanglements. For a very few this racket, like bootlegging and other underworld rackets, brings fancy profits, but the cost of operations is always transferred to the people – who do not profit.
Continued in Part Two
Constitutional Sheriff Bill Introduced in Tenn.
Written by Joe Wolverton, II
Friday, 16 September 2011
A new bill making its way through the Tennessee General Assembly states that a federal employee who is not designated as a Tennessee peace officer may not make an arrest or conduct a search and seizure in the Volunteer State without the express consent of the sheriff of the county in which the arrest, search, and seizure is to occur except under certain enumerated circumstances.
The measure, SB 1108, is currently under consideration by the Senate Judiciary Committee (a companion measure offered on the House side has been referred to the House General Subcommittee on the Judiciary).
The primary author of the legislation is a lawmaker familiar with controversy — Senator Stacey Campfield (R-Knoxville, pictured). Campfield received vitriolic criticism by many for another bill he sponsored derisively (and incorrectly) nicknamed the “Don’t Say Gay Bill.”
That bill, as reported by The New American, seeks to forbid public school elementary and middle school teachers from “furnishing any materials on human sexuality other than heterosexuality.” As of today, the amended version of that bill has been passed by the state Senate and is awaiting transmission to the state House of Representatives.
Campfield’s latest offering takes aim at the encroachment by federal officers into what should be the exclusive jurisdiction of state law enforcement officials. This bill and similar measures offered in other states is known as a “Constitutional Sheriff Bill.”
The goal of both Senator Campfield’s measure and the others offered nationwide was described in an article published last year in The New American:
The borders around Montana are being blurred by an overreaching federal government bent on obliterating state sovereignty and assuming all governmental power unto itself. That’s the opinion of Rex Nichols, a candidate for sheriff of a rural county in Montana. Nichols is a retired police officer and he’s on a mission — to stop the freight train of federal absolutism in its tracks and restore power to the state and local governments.
Nichols isn’t alone on his quest. There are dozens of candidates for sheriff nationwide who share his view on the supremacy of state government and the constitutional locus of police power. These lawmen read the Constitution and nowhere in it do they find authorization for the federalization of law enforcement. In fact, they argue, the Constitution’s federal system endows local police with greater authority than any federal agent when it comes to enforcing the laws in their counties.
The specific measure offered by Senator Campfield is written boldly and clearly delineates the constitutional boundary between rightful state police authority and the unlawful exercise of that power by agents of the federal government.
So plain and powerful is the bill that it empowers the county sheriff (or his agent) to refuse permission to the federal officer to “make an arrest or conduct a search or seizure for any reason that the sheriff or designee considers sufficient.” The final arbiter of sufficient cause is the sheriff himself. This is a commendable expression of the sovereignty of the states as intended and protected by our Constitution and the men who framed it.
According to the provisions set forth in Section 1, Paragraph 5 (c) of the bill:
A federal employee who desires to make an arrest or conduct a search or seizure under subdivision (a)(4) shall obtain the written permission of the attorney general and reporter for the arrest, search, or seizure unless the resulting delay in obtaining permission would probably cause serious harm to one or more individuals or to a community or would probably allow time for flight of the subject of the arrest, search, or seizure in order to avoid prosecution. The attorney general and reporter may refuse the permission for any reason that the attorney general considers sufficient.
No vague request will satisfy the mandates of the measure were it to be enacted by the General Assembly of the Tennessee and signed into law by the governor. In fact, the bill explicitly requires that the permission request contain the following information:
(A) The name of the subject of the arrest, search, or seizure;
(B) A clear statement of probable cause for the arrest, search, or seizure or a federal arrest, search, or seizure warrant that contains a clear statement of probable cause;
(C) A description of the specific things to be searched for or
(D) A statement of the date and time that the arrest, search, or seizure is to occur; and
(E) The address or location where the intended arrest, search, or seizure will be attempted.
Once submitted, the local law enforcement agency to whom the written request was submitted has 48 hours to decide whether to extend to the federal agent permission to make the arrest, search, or seizure for which the petition was made.
The serious and very powerful posture struck by the measure is undeniable. In Section 1, Paragraph (f), the proposed law sets forth the punishments to be imposed upon a federal officer failing to conform to the dictates thereof:
An arrest, search, or seizure or attempted arrest, search, or seizure in violation of subsection (a) is unlawful, and the persons involved shall be prosecuted by the county attorney for kidnapping if an arrest or attempted arrest occurred, for trespass if a search or attempted search occurred, for theft if a seizure or attempted seizure occurred, and for any applicable homicide offense if loss of life occurred. The persons involved shall also be charged with any other applicable criminal offense.
Furthermore, if any county attorney fails to timely and properly prosecute the federal agent accused of violating the law’s mandates regarding arrest, search, and seizure, that attorney is subject to recall by the voters and “to prosecution by the attorney general for official misconduct.”
Gratefully, the state of Tennessee is not shrinking from its sovereign position. Strict constitutionalists will praise Senator Campfield and his co-sponsors for their rigid adherence to the principles of federalism and states’ rights that undergird our federal charter.
To their credit, these state lawmakers specifically cite the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in its concluding paragraph wherein is declared:
Pursuant to the tenth amendment to the United States constitution and this state’s compacts with other states, the general assembly declares that any federal law purporting to give federal employees the authority of a county sheriff in this state is not recognized by and is specifically rejected by this state and is declared to be invalid in this state.
Also, as is so unashamedly stated on a website devoted to furthering the cause of the Constitutional sheriffs and peace officers throughout the Republic:
‘Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.’ The [Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association] will unite the sheriffs, police, and local officials who are willing and courageous enough to join us in the ‘tempestuous sea of liberty.’ I am asking you to join with us.
‘If we fail, we fail while daring greatly, so that our posterity will never place us among those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat.’
Thankfully, there seem to be a growing number of citizens willing and ready to set sail on the “tempestuous sea of liberty” and repair the formerly impregnable walls of sovereignty once erected around all the states in the union.
- end –
Note from Elias: The following is one of the links embedded in the above article at its home site, (see top of page). It is an accurate insight into the spirit of Sheriff Richard Mack, former Sheriff of Grahm County, Arizona.
Times poll finds a souring mood among troops
Troops less sure of success in war, disillusioned with military quality of life
By Andrew Tilghman – Staff writer
Posted at Army Times: Thursday Sep 15, 2011
After a decade of war in Afghanistan, many troops are losing confidence in the long-term likelihood of success for the U.S. military mission there, and their overall support for President Obama has slipped, according to the latest Military Times annual reader survey.
Slightly less than half of readers said the U.S. is “very likely” or “somewhat likely” to succeed in Afghanistan. The figure is lower among troops who have deployed in support of Operation Enduring Freedom, the survey shows.
That has slipped steadily from 2007, when more than 75 percent of readers surveyed said the U.S. was “very likely” or “somewhat likely” to succeed in Afghanistan.
The war in Afghanistan is dampening support for Obama. Support for his handling of the war has dropped significantly since the last Military Times survey in January 2010, with about 41 percent of active-duty respondents disapproving. That’s up from 34 percent in 2010, shortly after Obama announced a surge of 30,000 additional troops for the war effort.
When asked how Obama was handling his job as president, 53 percent disapproved, up from 51 percent in 2010.
When asked superficially about Obama’s handling of his job as commander in chief, 45 percent of active-duty readers disapproved, up from 40 percent in 2010.
Respondents were split on Obama’s decision in July to begin a limited troop drawdown this year in Afghanistan. Some 37 percent “disapprove” or “strongly disapprove,” while 38 percent “approve” or “strongly approve.”
Obama’s weakening support in the ranks comes at a time when his poll numbers are dropping nationwide. Among the general population, Obama’s disapproval rating reached 53 percent in August, up sharply from 45 percent in January 2010, according to weekly Gallup polls of likely voters.
The growing pessimism among troops about the war in Afghanistan may reflect doubts about America’s long-term commitment to the herculean task of executing a counterinsurgency strategy.
“People wonder if we really have the commitment to follow this through,” said retired Army Command Sgt. Maj. Michael Hall, who was the top enlisted service member for the NATO mission in Kabul in 2009 and 2010. “I think everybody knows that we can be successful over there. But it’s going to take time and presence and commitment, and I think folks are worried that we go over there, we sacrifice our families and we work hard — but are we going to follow through? Or is this all going be for naught?”
Doubts about success in Afghanistan are slightly higher among troops who have deployed there. In a series of interviews, some troops say the mission there is fraught with a sense of futility driven by several factors, including a belief that the Afghan security forces are unmotivated.
“A lot of [the Afghan security forces] are just kind of like, ‘Well, we’ll fight with you here today and if tomorrow you all leave, then we’ll just fight for the next guy who comes along,’ said a 33-year-old Army captain who deployed to Afghanistan in 2009 and worked as a mentor to Afghan security forces. He requested anonymity because he said his command discourages talking to the media.
Michael Menning, a recently retired Air Force colonel and hospital administrator, said he became skeptical of the mission in Afghanistan after working with Afghans trying to set up a medical facility.
“They really have no interest in professional development, in learning how to run a hospital,” Menning said. “They really just think, ‘Hey, build us the hospital and we’ll run it the way we’ve always run it.’”
The pessimism is also fueled by a belief that the country is hopelessly corrupt. A 31-year-old Army sergeant who deployed to Afghanistan in 2010 said many troops believe the Afghan central government and many tribal leaders play both sides of the fence.
“Everybody knows that a majority of them still have ties with the Taliban,” said the sergeant, who asked to remain anonymous because he was not authorized to speak to the press.
Many respondents had different sentiments about Iraq. Some 70 percent say the war there has been a success. The figure was slightly higher among troops who have deployed to Iraq.
Similarly, 70 percent “approve” or “strongly approve” of current plans to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of this year.
Opinions on Obama’s handling of Iraq remain unchanged. About 40 percent of troops approve, the same level shown in the 2010 reader survey.
Still, doubts about the initial decision to invade Iraq remain. When asked, “Should the U.S. have gone to war in Iraq?” 43 percent of troops say yes.
Please view our EVENTS and ANNOUNCEMENTS pages for updated information on important activities happening this weekend. Please visit these pages along with our Meetings page often because they’re constantly being updated. Also visit and join our Meetup site as well to get updated on meetings and events all around Southern California. Thanks
I comb the late-night talk shows to find interesting guests and musical acts to record on my DVR. A couple days ago, I set up Tuesday nights Jimmy Kimmel Live show because the band Staind was performing. Wednesday morning I went to check it out, and as the band started the song on the outdoor stage with a huge crowd there, I realized Aaron Lewis, the lead singer, WAS WEARING AN OATH KEEPER HAT!!
Here’s the back story to that…
Back in early May (2011), I saw Aaron Lewis on Howard Stern TV promoting his solo album. He had a huge hit from the album called “Country Boy”. Howard talked with Aaron about 45 minutes, and early on he asked him about the prominent tattoo wrapping around his neck that said “Don’t Tread On Me”. Aaron was reluctant at first to discuss it, but Howard pressed him on it, and Aaron relented and told him what it stood for. He told Howard that it symbolized how he lived his life, and that he has lived his entire life based on liberty, freedom, and the Constitution! I was floored! Here was a successful mainstream artist espousing the ideals of liberty, freedom, and the Constitution!!! He showed genuine concern for where are country is at, and where it was headed if it didn’t change course! He expressed his firm beliefs in the 1st and 2nd Amendments and the Bill of Rights.
He stated he was on a solo acoustic tour, so I looked it up and saw he was gonna be in Laughlin, Nevada on the eve of Memorial Day, May 28. I bought tickets for myself, Drew and his girlfriend Sharon. Within a couple weeks, however, the Jose Guerena Tucson killing gained Oath Keepers attention. We had planned on going to Laughlin and somehow putting Oath Keeper gear in the hands of Aaron Lewis. As logistics and scheduling came together for the Guerena Memorial event, it became apparent that it wasn’t feasible to do both events. Regrettably, we missed the Aaron Lewis show to be prepared to give the Jose Guerena Memorial March our full attention.
Fast forward to late August, right before the Quartzsite 10 event. I saw Aaron Lewis featured on the marquee sign on I-215 in front of Green Valley Ranch Station Casino. He was playing there on the eve of Labor Day, Sept. 4. I bought two tickets the day I got back from the Quartzsite March. Dani Rascon was gonna try and come up from L.A. for it. We wanted to get Oath Keeper gear in his hands. Dani got tied up with some other events and couldn’t make it. That’s when Terry Flink steeped up and said he’d go to the show. When we got there, Terry said he knew a casino host. This guy said he would make sure the bag of OK gear would get to Aaron Lewis. The show was sold out in the Ovation room, and he performed masterfully!. Afterward, Terry’s friend texted him that the gear was placed in the limo Aaron Lewis would be leaving in. We figured “Mission Accomplished”!
Here we are, 10 days later, seeing Aaron Lewis wear the Oath Keeper Hat on the Jimmy Kimmel Live show! This show has over 2 million viewers on a nightly basis. I’m sure in the days and weeks to come, Aaron Lewis and Staind will be doing many appearances on TV and radio to promote their new album…and hopefully, Aaron will be wearing Oath Keeper gear! I look forward to him wearing an OK t-shirt/hat onstage on their Tour also! God Bless America…and Long Live The Republic!!
The Truth About The Oath Keepers
Sheriff Richard Mack
By Kathryn M. DeLong for Human Events
August 16, 2011
Read the original here – http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=45542
There was a time in our nation’s history when the American people came together to rally against a domineering British monarchy. It was during this time that the Founding Fathers produced the Constitution of the United States of America. Intended to serve as the supreme law of the land, the Constitution would be an eternal reminder of the tyranny that Americans had to overcome during the country’s earliest years.
In the eyes of Americans, the Constitution has been a beacon of morality, virtue, and democratic principle. While many U.S. citizens still maintain this outlook, scores of others have decided to turn their backs on the text that once guaranteed them freedom and liberty.
Perhaps the most notable cause of concern is that the federal government and law enforcement officers – meant to act as the ultimate embodiment of constitutionality – have consistently demonstrated blatant disregard for the Constitution.
Stewart Rhodes, a former U.S. Army paratrooper and Yale Law School alumnus, recognized this growing inattention to the Constitution and determined it to be a potentially dangerous approach to governing. In response, Rhodes took it upon himself to establish Oath Keepers in March 2009.
The nonpartisan, nonprofit organization reaches out to active duty military, reserves, National Guard, law enforcement, fire fighters, and veterans who are committed to upholding and defending the Constitution.
There are 10 orders the Oath Keepers will not obey. These include disarming and detaining American citizens as combatants, imposing martial law, forcing Americans into detention camps, and infringing upon the right of the people to free speech.
“Article Six of the United States Constitution requires all government officials at every level – from the dogcatcher to the President – to take the same oath,” said Richard I. Mack, former sheriff of Graham County, Ariz., and Oath Keepers board member. “We’re required by the supreme law of the land to swear an oath of allegiance to the Constitution.”
Despite Oath Keepers’ seemingly genuine interest in restoring the authority of the Constitution, organizations such as the Southern Poverty Law Center and Anti-Defamation League have publicly denounced Oath Keepers as a threat to American society.
In its Fall 2009 intelligence report titled, “The Second Wave: Evidence Grows of Far-Right Militia Resurgence,” the Southern Poverty Law Center labeled Oath Keepers as “a particularly worrisome example of the Patriot revival.”
Mark Potok, a spokesman for the SPLC on issues of extremism, asserted that, while Oath Keepers promotes itself as a group whose mission is to uphold the Constitution, this is simply a façade.
“They say that they are merely upholding the Constitution and re-pledging their oaths to defend it,” Potok said. “We say the reality is [that] they are animated by very specific conspiratorial fears which are absolutely groundless. I think that’s obvious.”
Potok claimed that proof of this lies in the language of Oath Keepers’ ten orders. Aside from this, he was not able to specify any further evidence. The SPLC believes that the references Oath Keepers make to concentration camps and martial law irrefutably confirm that the group is based entirely upon false conspiracy theories.
“The core idea of virtually all militia groups and all patriot groups is that the evil federal government is involved in a plot to impose martial law on the United States, probably with the aid of foreign troops,” Potok said. “Those who resist will be thrown into concentration camps, which either have been or will be built by FEMA, and ultimately, the United States will take all weapons from citizens here and force this country into some kind of socialistic New World Order.”
Rhodes said that those who oppose Oath Keepers misleadingly characterize members of the group as conspiracy theorists. “It’s a smear tactic,” Rhodes said.
“Most of the things that are listed in our ten orders are reflections,” Rhodes explained. “They’re reflections of our Bill of Rights, and they’re also reflections of the history of the Twentieth century.”