Saturday, August 24, 2013

"Fundraiser to be held tomorrow for oath-keeping Florida sheriff" and a response to a criticism of Oath Keepers.

"A coalition of citizens and liberty-minded peace officers will gather tomorrow in Panama City, Fla., to raise money in support of Liberty County Sheriff Nick Finch, removed from office by Gov. Rick Scott, and now under investigation by the state for alleged destruction of documents in a case where he dismissed charges against a man arrested with a gun in a traffic stop. . ."
Although Finch has never been a member, both CPSOA and Oath Keepers, the national association of active duty and retired military, police, and first responders, are coming to the defense of a kindred spirit, and Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes will be joining Sheriff Mack and other speakers at tomorrow’s fundraiser.
The event will be held between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. at the Palms Conference Center, 9201 Front Beach Road, Panama City Beach, Fla. Those who can attend are urged to, as well as to spread the word, and those who cannot are urged to donate to the Finch defense fund via the “Donate” button on the CPSOA site.
This post of David's, linked here at War On Guns, prompted this reaction from "militialaw":
I donated but must point out Sheriff Finch is not an Rhodes "Oath Keeper"...which might explain why he actually did something.
I stand behind my frequent criticism of Oath Keepers as a bunch of do-nothing talkers that wouldn't stand up to tyranny if tyranny sat down.
They have the weapons, training, and potential to end the present police state, but instead, to a man, they choose to collect their $ and enforce laws that plainly contradict the Constitution.
Rhodes should be embarrassed to show his face tomorrow.
Which in turn prompted this rejoinder from David:
militialaw, thank you for showing leadership in this. As for your critique, I know Stewart, he is a close personal friend and I can tell you from personal interactions that the general public has no idea the passion and integrity of the man and the personal sacrifices he has made and continues to make. It's late and I don't have time tonight to go into a detailed exposition of the value of the groundwork he and his team have laid and the potential it can reap when the S truly does HTF. For now, my trust, and I do not give it casually or without cause, is that the phase we are now in makes the timely educating of a critical mass, particularly in the military, but also in the LEO community, the invaluable priority, and this is borne out in part by the reaction of the PTB discourage to the education message OK brings (I came across a military training PDF that takes its cues from SPLC that I believe is directly aimed at squelching such influence under the allegation of extremism--can't find the link at the moment)
If you are looking for overt examples, not all of the interpositions that have been made on an individual basis are--or can be--known at this time, and may never be known--to do so would remove valuable allies from being able to do so and to influence their peers. Also bear in mind that not all forces and units have OKs, and individual members are probably not on scene to alter most of the outrages we hear about.
I wold ask anyone critical or impatient to see more concrete examples to look at what we see with Finch, to see how the establishment will demonize and hang such people, and then to ask themselves exactly what it is that they have done overtly and risked, to note how mounting a defense depends on obscure bloggers like me begging people who, by and large, don't even share links or send emails, let alone contribute, as you have done. And ditto for "complainers" and whistleblowers, as anyone who has followed F&F and other govt. obscenities can see for themselves. Getting canned and/or prosecuted will do no one any good, and sometimes, embedded resources just need to keep their heads down as a matter of living to fight another day.
I guess I'll need to find time to address this soon, but I also guess if this does not give you pause, I don't really have much more to throw at it except my personal belief, which if you know anything about me and my work, you'd know does not come from a place of blind faith.
I second David's appreciation of Oath Keepers and Stewart Rhodes. There are hundreds of examples I could cite from the past few years, but let me just point out a few from my most recent collaboration with Stewart during the trip to Massachusetts, Connecticut and New York in April. First, I couldn't have made the trip on my own resources and given my health status at the time without Stewart's help and support. Thus, I wouldn't have been able to give those speeches in Massachusetts and Connecticut, so I wouldn't have been able to kick off the smuggling campaign.
In addition, I came to meet with Oathkeepers in those states (and from others in New England) and got a whole new appreciation for the OK campaigns and the inroads they are making in places you'd never expect.
Finally, our domestic enemies of the Constitution have made Rhodes and OK their particular targets, from Bill Clinton's denunciation of both Oath Keepers and the Three Percenters in the same breath back in April 2010 to SPLC to the FBI and Army CID. If that isn't an indication that they're doing something right, I don't know what is.


Anonymous said...

As a former Military Policeman, I'm curious, how exactly is Army CID moving against Oath Keepers? Are they actually attempting to bring charges against Soldiers who join?

Dutchman6 said...

I know from reports to me personally that CID does open investigations on Oath Keeper soldiers -- just for being known as OK's -- because the command structure considers them a "subversive organization." Careers have been threatened for simple membership.

Badger said...

They will also come under scrutiny under the currently ratcheded-up climate of adverse information reporting on colleagues; this affects clearance, position selection, etc. When the -2 shop is putting out parroted regime (or SPLC) information that lumps Oath Keepers with that perjorative umbrella of "sovereign citizens" they will get the evil eye cast their way. It is tough within the DoD to hold to one's oath & I say this being less than 60 days since retiring from the belly of the beast. Sadder is the number of JAG advisors so inclined and, even fewer, the commanders willing to take their counsel.

Anonymous said...

I suggest that OK members keep their memberships secret from their commanders, if possible. Hell, if they're "subversive", why not in secret?

- Old Greybeard

Anonymous said...

The left doesn't have to attack their opponents so long as their opponents can be persuaded to attack each other.

I recall reading something about "casting the first stone".

Anonymous said...

The Left has an opening for co-opting the Oath Keepers through Greenbackism/Chicago School Economics/MMT:

False Flag Infiltrators: Gold-Hating Fiat Money Inflationists Inside the Libertarian-Conservative Movement

So study up on your Austrian Economics, so you know how to answer them:

The Birth of the Austrian School | Josep T. Salerno

Calculation and Socialism | Joseph T. Salerno

An Introduction to Sound Money

The Austrian School on Business Cycles: 100 Years of Being Right | Mark Thornton

Paul X said...

Gene Sharp, the doyenne of nonviolent resistance, also approves of contacts within police organizations:
The army is one of the most important sources of the power of
dictators because it can use its disciplined military units and weap-
onry directly to attack and to punish the disobedient population.
Defiance strategists should remember that it will be exceptionally difficult,
or impossible, to disintegrate the dictatorship if the police, bureaucrats, and
military forces remain fully supportive of the dictatorship and obedient in
carrying out its commands. Strategies aimed at subverting the loyalty
of the dictators’ forces should therefore be given a high priority by
democratic strategists.
The democratic forces should remember that disaffection and
disobedience among the military forces and police can be highly
dangerous for the members of those groups. Soldiers and police
could expect severe penalties for any act of disobedience and execu-
tion for acts of mutiny. The democratic forces should not ask the
soldiers and officers that they immediately mutiny. Instead, where
communication is possible, it should be made clear that there are a
multitude of relatively safe forms of “disguised disobedience” that
they can take initially. For example, police and troops can carry out
instructions for repression inefficiently, fail to locate wanted persons,
warn resisters of impending repression, arrests, or deportations, and
fail to report important information to their superior officers. Disaf-
fected officers in turn can neglect to relay commands for repression
down the chain of command. Soldiers may shoot over the heads of
demonstrators. Similarly, for their part, civil servants can lose files
and instructions, work inefficiently, and become “ill” so that they
need to stay home until they “recover.”

The most effective police and soldiers may well be those with our sympathies, but who do NOT join Oathkeepers.

Anonymous said...

"As for your critique, I know Stewart, he is a close personal friend and I can tell you from personal interactions that the general public has no idea the passion and integrity of the man and the personal sacrifices he has made and continues to make. "

And that is the problem - his 'passion and integrity' are invisible, ie NOT BEING SEEN. Thus, people have their doubts as to his genuineness.