I note that the Oath Keepers are discussing what, if anything, to do about this: "This is a call to ACTION for all Militia, lll%er's, Oathkeepers, and Patriotic support personel." (sic)
I left this comment at the OK site:
I am not a member of Oath Keepers, although I certainly support your organization and your stated mission from afar. As the Bundy Ranch situation demonstrated, this is not my first rodeo. Among other things, I worked with Bob Wright and the Minutemen on the New Mexico border in October 2005, so I have a little experience at this particular subject.
As always, any proposed action involving the constitutional militia, the Three Percent and, in your case, Oath Keepers, ought to be subjected to some critical questions:
1. What is the threat to innocent lives? Where is it coming from?
2. What is the proper course of action to alleviate that threat?
3. WHO is proposing the action? What are their motives?
4. Do such people have the ability (and yes that includes experience, vision, discernment and command presence) to carry it out? (People who call for volunteers have a commander's DUTY to care for their people, not to risk them on stupidities, and to carry out the proper mission -- if it is proper -- in a way most likely of success of that mission.)
5. Finally, is the course of action consistent with the mission statement and principles of the organization/movement?
In the case of the Bundys the answers to the first two questions rightfully overrode concerns about 3 & 4 and thus the answer to 5 was obvious. The prospect of another Waco was the immediate danger and the overarching concern. The answers to 3 & 4 were not germane to what was the proper COA -- get out to the Bundys and support them by interposing the armed citizenry between them and the armed Feds who immediately threatened them. That is not to say that the answers to 3 & 4 did not assume importance later. They did. But now, in this instance, in the absence of an immediate deadly threat, it is proper to ask those questions up front.
The answer to Question 1 is that there is no immediate threat to innocent lives and while perhaps federally inspired and certainly a violation of law, it does not meet the test of immediate response.
As near as I can determine from the "strategic vision" announced by the organizers, the answer to Question 2 is also no.
In the absence of compelling answers to 1 & 2, the answers to 3 & 4 become more important and here I can find no one who can answer them satisfactorily as of this writing.
Thus, the overriding question -- # 5 -- becomes even more critical. Is the proposed COA consistent with the principles and mission statement of the organization or movement mission statement and principles? What is accomplished by a picket line of armed volunteers threatening to shoot unarmed, half-starved and thirsty children? I agree that the invasion is devilish in its conception, carried out by collectivists who could give a shit less about how many kids die along the way, but will the proposed COA do ANYTHING about it other than to help make the other side's propaganda points?
Only the Oath Keepers can answer Question 5 for the Oath Keepers. As for my advice to Three Percenters, based on what I know now, stay as far away from this incipient exercise in cluster coitus as you can.