Oath Keepers.
LATER: David Codrea's reaction: So, Ol' Remus: Have you stopped beating your sex slave son long enough to cash your government check? See how easy that was? You pass along unsubstantiated allegations, made solely by those with an axe to grind, smearing the work, the motivations and the character of others with absolutely no evidence? And you fling you feces from behind a mask, right down to proxy registration?
In a hurry to get out the door this morning, I actually posted the link before I intended to, wanting to make a strong defense of Oathkeepers. David has bluntly put my own reservations to Remus' critique. Put simply, I stand by Oath Keepers and Stewart Rhodes.
19 comments:
Hey Mike, I place this here as the thought just came to me and I wanted to share it.
Barack Obama has said that were he the owner of a team and there is a size able group of people offended by its name then he would consider changing that name.
Well, the Democrats have offended millions of people for decades. He owns that party as it's leader and the long history of offense is easily documented. So when is Barry gonna change the name of the Democrat Party?
Maybe some of your readers can set that alight on twitter and Facebook.
"As the Democrat party has offended millions for decades, it's leader Barack Obama pledges by his own standards to consider changing its name." #Redskins
ASH
III
" Put simply, I stand by Oath Keepers and Stewart Rhodes."
Why?
What specific action(s) consistent with the "oathkeepers" platform led to this unwarranted faith?
Please, inform.
Anony Mouse @ 12:45
Could you possibly come up with a more asinine puddle of verbiage than "What specific action(s) consistent with the "oathkeepers" platform led to this unwarranted faith?".
What source of deep wisdom would inform you that another person's faith was 'unwarranted'?
Or perhaps English is not your native language, in which case your commenting would be improved by use of a good book on grammar. As for Mike's faith in someone whom he has known for years, he need not justify that to anyone else.
I think the last bus for the Citadel just left.
Mike;
There are a lot of these "so called" oath keepers who havent been faithful to either of their oath yet.. why should we trust them now ?
Good cop vs bad cop where has it happened. Where has any federal officer told the other cretins in their swat team to stand down and not invade someones home ? Where were the good guys during fast and Furious ? Where are they now ?
I havent seen anything to support their claims but their words.. this concept of ATeam tactics makes good reporting but would you tell them your plans and show them your stores ?
I'll pass.
Yank lll
I didn't see a single Boston officer refuse to illegally enter those houses with a warrantless search.
I didn't see a single officer throw themselves in front of the doors before breech to stop it from happening.
Many are waiting to see something come of the oath keepers. So far it's been a bust. I'm patiently optimistic and hoping for the best.
What's all the fuss? I see no real criticism of either Mr. Rhodes or Oathkeepers. "Ol Remus" merely said to judge them by their actions.
@Anon at October 8, 2013 at 1:45 PM,
You asked why Mike (and I suspect to an equal degree David) stands by Stewart Rhodes an the fine organization he founded. How about this?
#1 The Dutchman actually KNOWS Stewart Rhodes. He has labored beside him and Mike has has the opportunity to take the measure of his soul. We cannot know everyone personally so sometimes we just have to trust the judgement of someone we DO know.
#2 Do you actually believe that any Fed bureaucrat drone is capable of coming up with something "Oath Keepers" as a cover for a sting?
#3 Would the Feds be trying so hard to discredit SR if he were one of theirs? You are aware that recently he was the target of an email attack that could have kept him behind bars until Dear Leader's younger daughter was old enough to serve as POTUS?
Of course the fact that you are afraid to reveal anything of yourself could cause a less trusting person than myself to suspect that YOU are the Fed drone working part of the continuing op to discredit Mr. Rhodes among other leaders of the conservative movement.
Here we go again with the circular firing squad.
"Remus" has put out a lot of good information over the years, just like Mike has. If he prefers to be more paranoid than the rest of us, that is his choice and he is welcome to it. His admonition to avoid ALL crowds strikes some of us as basic common sense, since the history of large groups of humans has not shown many instances of good outcomes for individuals.
I support the mission of the Oathkeepers, but I recognize it as a group of individuals who have made a choice to abide by the oath that they took. Being true to an oath is to be rewarded, at least among civilized men.
Some of us out here are loners at heart and don't want to be rolled into a class or grouping of anyone else's choice.
I too am skeptical of Oath Keepers, they have had very poor leadership in the past, and some real flakes in high places. Remember the arrest of the guy in the truck with oath keepers plastered all over it going to help the writ writers take over a small town?
I was very excited when they launched their organization, but poor leadership shows up fast and is hard to forget. Before I will "EVER" take them seriously they must shed the "common law" bullshit and focus on the Constitution.
You cannot issue an arrest warrant to arrest the POTUS dumbass' You just make yourselves look as stupid as you really are.
Anon @1:45,
This faith is not unwarranted. Many of us III%ers happen to know Stewart Rhodes personally, or barring that, many more know him through the safe-vouch of a mutual friend. If you do not know anyone that knows Stewart, keep networking. We who trust him know he's legit and is committed to the cause like few others are.
Stasi
My defense of Stewart rests on knowing him since 19 April 2009. We have had our disagreements, goodness knows, but he is the genuine article. While I appreciate the source of Remus' skepticism -- fear of FBI COINTELPRO operations is certainly rational (as I have personal knowledge of the Tri-States Militia Network fiasco from the 90s) -- I have stood shoulder to shoulder with Stewart when he has risked arrest rather than back down. Remus is right that by their works ye shall know them.
Stewart has risked much in the past and we will all be risking more when we go to San Antonio in ten days to confront the anti-firearm thugs there who exercise their anti-constitutional agenda under color of law.
Stay tuned.
Even when the shooting starts, we will not know who is righteous and who is/was the government controlled opposition. The only thing we can be sure of is, which way those to the left and right of us, have their rifles pointed. The only information anyone will be receiving will be FEMA broadcasts which will be nothing but government propaganda. In the meantime, I am willing to support Stewart Rhodes as he stood up and did something, when tens of thousands of "patriots", had their asses firmly planted on a picket fence. As many others have said before me, now is the time for solidarity as we are running out of tomorrows.
Snowball effect.
Although I don't know any members personally, it seems that the outrage of Katrina would still be an outrage with no solution and no voice were it not for Stewart Rhodes.
Oathkeepers started a national conversation about our Constitutional Oath, where the nation was headed, and just the name alone got people moving in a positive direction. Otherwise some folks would still be scratching their pumpkins wondering "where do we go from here".
"#2 Do you actually believe that any Fed bureaucrat drone is capable of coming up with something "Oath Keepers" as a cover for a sting?"
You already know that the Feral Bureau of Instigation infiltrates every militia and Constitution supporting group. There are many FBI employees in Oath Keepers of their own free will, and there are many more who are there under orders.
Unlike the Huttarees, there have been no attempts to instigate crime within OK (so far). People who know him are confident that Stuart will deal with any instigators properly.
Lesson learned from the Huttarees:
When the Confidential Informant tries to talk you into making a bomb, "You go ahead and do that and I'll watch it on TV" is the sort of response that will land you in federal prison for a couple of years while you await trial on conspiracy charges. The more baseless the charge, the longer feral persecuting attorneys will delay your trial.
'ol Remus put BOTH the negative AND the positive POSSIBILITIES out there in his bullet point.
then he said take it ALL with a grain of sand.
and gets excoriated.
screw that, for it is the ' circular firing squad' indeed. if you're NOT suspicious the I find THAT suspicious.
'ol Remus provides as useful a service as ANY and didn't deserve Codrea landing on him with both feet, nor Sipsey's immediate taking of him to task.
Too much dick-measuring BS goin' on ...
Well, I, too, KNOW Stuart. He can't put together an organization NOT riddled with problems. I was there at the beginning.
No more support for Oath Keepers.
David's attack on Ol' Remus was unwarranted. No more support or money going there, either.
I won't support stupid people any longer.
Those of you who are skeptical of Oath Keepers and Rhodes, need to stay that way.
Just saying.
Devildog
Just because some of YOU know Rhodes, doesn't mean I do. I don't owe anyone loyalty until they earn it. He may be a fine person, with OK being a honest organization. But it behooves us all to treat them cautiously until they prove themselves, and prove that they aren't being used by someone else to monitor honest OK's. Counter-intelligence 101, guys.
Any one who demands you accept their view on things isn't doing any of us any favors.
Going to "operationalize" something like OK, probably best to do so F2F by word of mouth, not via the open internet. Unless you want to be starting something more than operational teams. OPSEC is not a dirty word - it's a way of life - at least, it is for the living... just saying. Remus has every right to be skeptical... You going to "operationalize" a bunch of potential A-type teams, your skin better be a heck of a lot thicker than it seems to be. Mao said it: something about fishes needing to be able to swim in the sea of the people/masses. You go around snarking at folks like Remus, who basically agree with much of what you are doing, and look around to see how much sea you have left to swim in, folks. You publicly announce you are going to "operationalize" and the first thing you do is piss off a bunch of potential supporters. Riiigghht. So, where's the wisdom in that? III%ers, too. Think OPSEC, fellows, think OPSEC. The boyz can put together a much bigger team of much more heavily armed and armored dudes pretty quickly. Y'all go ahead and tell 'em who you are so they can get your coordinates plugged in before time. I agree with some of the other posts = there were an awful lot of cops in Boston, and not one of them seems to have stopped any illegal searches. Ole Remus is right: avoid *all* crowds.
Post a Comment