The Bundy Affair – Oath Keepers vs. Militia – Part II
Outpost of Freedom
April 29, 2014
In these past few weeks, we have seen history unfolding right before our very eyes. Events in Bunkerville, Nevada, have been watched on the evening news throughout the country, and quite possibly, around the world. For the first time in a century and a half, Americans stood, defiant, ready to go to the wall, against the government, or at least one of her administrative agencies, to assure that the erosion of our liberties ceases, and we begin to restore our rights to what our forefathers intended.
From a people rather complacent for most of their lives comes a new test not unlike that which the Founders faced back in 1774 — the determination of who is on our side and who is not; who is committed and who is not; who is willing to give his life for a cause that he believes in and who is not, and that what this story is about.
Recent events in Bunkerville portray that test in vivid and sensational detail. I give a chronology to these events, and they will be presented in Pacific Daylight Time, regardless of the local time where some of them occurred. This is to insure continuity, and that the sequence is properly portrayed.
At about 2:30 pm, Friday April 25, 2014, Mr. X received a call from an associate. This call would provide for some interesting disclosure over the next 6 hours. The associate is described as a fellow participant in Open Source Intelligence, a nuclear physicist, a Democrat, a higher-ranking military officer, and that held a “Yankee White” security clearance.
I spent nearly an hour going over the details with Mr. X, to whom I have promised confidentiality. I am fully satisfied as to the veracity of what he told me. Though I did ask him if it would be possible to talk with the associate, with a guarantee of anonymity, he assured me that this would not be possible, as was made clear by the associate. I then asked him if Oath Keepers had asked if they could interview his source. His answer was, no they did not. This, to me, is a rather curious omission, even though the answer would be anticipated to be as it was — so much for the intelligence gathering ability of Oath Keepers, but, hey, I’m just a reporter. What would I know?
The story related in the conversation between Mr. X and the associate is that the associate had received information from a source he knew in the Defense Department (DOD). The source at DOD said that they had received orders from Eric Holder, of the Justice Department, to conduct drone surveillance of the Bundy property and to conduct a hot drone strike on the ranch and those on or around it. This was to occur within between 24 to 48 hours, and that there were to be no witnesses nor would any videos be allowed to leave the area.
Mr. X was quite shaken by what he had heard and expressed those concerns back at the associate. Wouldn’t this be going too far in the eyes of the public? Answer: They are prepared to deal with that. There is no way that this could be covered up. Response: They are prepared for that. It was suggested that this would lead to martial law based upon authority provided for in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). He was also told that the justification for the strike was based upon Harry Reid’s assertion that Bundy and those supporting him were “Domestic Terrorists”. To each of Mr. X’s queries, similar answers were provided to justify the story being conveyed.
Mr. X was, to say the least, perplexed and did not know what to do with this information. By about 3:00 pm, he contacted Stewart Rhodes of Oath Keepers. Rhodes, upon receipt of this information wisely dispatched Wes (aka “Mac”, Oath Keepers Intelligence Officer, about 6′ tall, older gentleman, prior Special Forces operator, driving a silver pickup truck) and Michelle to meet with Mr. X. and ‘vett’ him to determine whether he was sincere and to make an evaluation of the story.
Jumping ahead to 8:03 pm, John Jacob Schmidt, Radio Free Redoubt, interviewed Rhodes and other Oath Keepers (21’18″) regarding this story. Rhodes, justifiably, pointed out that the vetting had convinced him that the source (Mr. X) was sincere, though there was no way of verifying Mr. X’s source. Rhodes said that there was a risk to his credibility by putting this out, but since there was a concern for human lives, the story must be gotten out. Rhodes also pointed out, in releasing the story, that he was not going to “let my people die on my watch” and to “err on the side of caution for my guys.” Of course, the advertisement at the end of the radio interview was an enlistment ad for Oath Keepers.
Let me return to my interview with Mr. X. We discussed potential scenarios that might occur, considering the strike and its ramifications. Presuming the government had drone surveillance, and wanted to assure maximum effect, they would have a containment team to prevent any attempt of any of people to leave the area, as they did in Waco, where only those who came out in view of the cameras came out alive. They would have to insure meeting the objective of the strike — all personnel dead and evidence destroyed. As Rhodes pointed out, they would need a follow on team, though he didn’t address containment. That follow on team could surely serve as the containment team prior, and the follow on team subsequent, to the strike. We also discussed the ramifications — the effect on the American, and world, public, should such a strike occur. We all know how even the Mainstream Media (MSM) reacted to the directed drone strikes that killed two American citizens in Yemen, even though they had sided with our ‘enemy’. What would be the consequence of a general, indiscriminate, attack on men, women, and children, on American Soil, for merely resisting the enforcement of an agency rule to “rustle” Bundy’s cattle? No shots fired, no deaths, or even injuries. Would the public stand for it, and would Congressmen, even Democrats, scramble to condemn the action? Would a hundred million Americans realize that the government had gone berserk? Would they then flock to the cause of those who would resist such tyranny? Even MSM might even turn, drastically, against the administration. Would Jay Carney have trouble attempting to justify such action?
The probability of such an action is, at least, remote, and such intelligence should be used only within the confines of the current operations at the Bundy Ranch, rather than risk ridicule, when precautions could easily be taken, without public notice of such a threat?
Returning to the time line of events, we now go back to the Ranch to see what activity occurred because of this threat. At between 5:00 and 6:00 pm, Oath Keepers at the ranch began packing up their gear. At about 8:00 pm, about the time of the radio interview, Rhodes used the internal communication system and notified the Oath Keepers that they should move out. By 8:30 pm, 30-40 Oath Keepers in the encampment had moved out, as had the Oath Keepers command circle. Only about 5 Oath Keepers remained at the ranch to protect the Bundy family and property. Where did the others go? To the Virgin River Motel, possibly at the expense of the contributions sent to Oath Keepers, contributions having been made to provide protection for the Bundys, not for luxurious comforts for those who had abandoned their posts.
Later that evening (exact time unknown) a conference call was made between State Representative Michelle Fiore, Stewart Rhodes, Pete Santilli (patriot videographer), Booda Bear (Personal Security Detail for the Bundy family), Ryan Payne, Militia Liaison, and LTC Potter (who states, “I am a former US Army LTC of 28 years. I served in various Military Police and Military Intelligence positions around the globe. I was also a municipal police officer for about 3 years. I bring my unique experience, training, education, and spiritual insights to bear in analyzing important issues and trends in the U.S. and the world.”). The result of the conversation was to request that Representative Fiore contact the Governor and request the State’s support, independent of the militia, to provide protection for those Americans on the ground at the ranch. To date, there has been no response from the Governor.
So, let’s put a bit of perspective on what can be deduced by the actions of some of the players in these events.
First, as explained in my article, Vortex, if the government wants to disrupt or bring ridicule on the patriot community, it would choose an innocent patriot who they hoped would be likely to spread the story, indiscriminately, throughout the patriot community. However, the chosen conduit, the Vortex, had enough sense to provide the information, discretely, to someone he respected, hence the message going to Oath Keepers. Oath Keepers could have contained the story and still benefitted, in every way, by preparing for that eventuality. Instead, they chose to go public with it, for reasons unknown.
The Oath Keeper mission, “to not obey unconstitutional orders”, had, by their participation at the ranch, extended to “protecting the Bundy family”. They also declare that their purpose includes “education”. Now, if their mission is to protect the Bundy Family, just how far does that go? Given the choice of fulfilling their mission, by removing the Bundys, by force, if necessary, or holding their ground against the ‘enemy”, they chose to abandon that mission, for their own protection. Being that their membership is largely Law Enforcement, it appears that they have also adopted the “Officer Safety” principle adhered to by Law Enforcement to justify killing unarmed civilians. In this instance, the outcome would have been the same, had the strike occurred. In military parlance, this would be tantamount to desertion under fire. I can only suggest that the purpose for going public with the story was to justify their withdrawal, after the beating that they have recently taken as a result of an article, The Bundy Affair – Oathkeepers vs. Militia, wherein one of their officers, in the comments section, is unable to address some of the concerns raised.
Various discussions around the Internet have also brought their true role and purpose at the Bundy Ranch into question. I won’t suggest that this event, the drone strike, may have been a setup by the Oath Keepers to bow out gracefully, as I don’t believe that they would stoop that low. However, I can only wonder why those stalwart militiamen held their ground, while the professed bearers of the torch chose to flee. Not quite like the roles played in the American Revolutionary War, where militia fled and the trained soldiers held their ground — to the last extremity.
Now, some have suggested that this controversy between militia and Oath Keepers has caused division in the patriot community. I am inclined to see this in a different light, in that, in these times, we must separate the voices from the action; Those who will stand, and those who will not; those who are true patriots, and those who only mouth those words.
Epilogue: Yesterday, the militia command structure, which is a shared command rather than top down, held a Coalition meeting to provide insight into why Oath Keepers, with the exception of those few who stood their ground like real patriots, were deemed persona non grata, by those who still stand their ground, and truly honor their oaths. Coalition Meeting of April 28 – caution, language.
Finally, a Salute to all true Americans that seek a return to the government intended by the Constitution.
The Bundy Affair – Oathkeepers vs. Militia
Outpost of Freedom
April 24, 2014
Oathkeepers is a national organization founded by Elmer Stewart Rhodes in 2009. By 2011, they had a reported membership of 12,000, though no current membership figures are readily available. Their stated Purpose:
Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of current and formerly serving military, police, and first responders who pledge to fulfill the oath all military and police take to “defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” That oath, mandated by Article VI of the Constitution itself, is to the Constitution, not to the politicians, and Oath Keepers declare that they will not obey unconstitutional orders, such as orders to disarm the American people, to conduct warrantless searches, or to detain Americans as “enemy combatants” in violation of their ancient right to jury trial. See the Oath Keepers Declaration of Orders We Will Not Obey for details.
Interestingly, they say that they will not “conduct warrantless searches”, though those in law enforcement do so every day. But, then, that is not the point of discussing Oathkeepers, so, on with the story.
They declare that “THEY will not obey unconstitutional orders”. Otherwise, they did not explicitly state, since they refer to their “oaths”, that they will “defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic”, though that is not their primary purpose, only incidental. Nowhere do they make that their purpose. Only not to obey unconstitutional orders. This needs to be emphasized as this is where the rubber meets the road.
Though we have no current numbers, the membership structure consists of both Full and Associate memberships, with Full being $40 per year and Associate being $7.00. Associates are supporters that don’t meet the criteria defined in the “Purpose”.
We must ask ourselves why Oathkeepers are even on the scene. They have taken an oath not to violate their oath. That is well and good, but let’s look at how that fits into the current situation. Oathkeepers (not associate Oathkeepers) are current, ex, or retired law enforcement, etc., and military. So, we’ll look, first, at Law Enforcement.
Active Law Enforcement are currently paid by the enemy (government), just as the Redcoats were 230 years ago. If they were on our side and acted in conjunction with Constitutional Militia, they would, in essence, be fighting themselves or their brother LEOs). They may still be on the side of their brothers. However, if you look at almost any state, Law Enforcement Officers are specifically excluded from the militia — check your own state statute under the militia section. So, on to ex-LEOs. This would presume that they did not get the time in for retirement, leaving the question as to, “Why?” Sort of reminds us of the guy charged with a crime and then the charges are, mysteriously, dropped; or, the guy that has an assignment that requires that he shed his Law Enforcement identity. Finally, we come to the Retired LEO. He is receiving a very substantial paycheck. Many larger cities have salaries for these full-term officers in excess of 100 thousand dollars per year. That would prove to be a tidy sum, which, surely, the retiree would not be willing to relinquish because he participated in an event that was an action against his brothers in Law Enforcement. We must judge based upon what we can use as a benchmark to measure the probability of actual concurrence with the efforts of the militia.
With regard to LEOs, since 1967, law enforcement training has focused on a “them or us” mentality. That means that though they are sworn to enforce the law, that policy is inapplicable if the offender is a brother law enforcer, except, perhaps, in extremely egregious circumstances, likely comprising a very small fraction of a percent of all LEO offenses. Will he ever be willing to disassociate himself from an aura of superiority that had become a mainstay of his life?
On the other hand, their disdain for the public safety, as demonstrated so often by “policy” of “Officer Safety” resulting in hundreds of killings per year of innocent, unarmed citizens. If an officer is involved in such incident, he gets administrative leave, with pay, pending investigation — yes, paid vacation, not taken from his contractual vacation time — for killing someone. If by some chance the victim’s family prevails in a lawsuit, then the taxpayers pay the damages and costs. What a deal! But, I digress, though that digression is also important to the story.
In addition, perhaps we should consider the proliferation of Fusion Centers, where various federal agencies interface with local law enforcement officers. Can we reasonably expect that there is not a degree of encouragement for the locals to infiltrate, or at least, ingratiate, the various patriot groups to obtain intelligence on their operations? If so, the simple next step is to attempt to gain influence to be able to direct, or at least influence, those groups’ activities, in support of their federal comrades.
Now, let’s look at the Military side of Oathkeepers. Active military can be of no assistance, as he would not go AWOL, or risk his leave, to do something that might get him an early discharge, at less than honorable. We’ll jump to Retired, and we will recognize the same problematic relationship with the pension of one who takes on the federal government. As well as his obedience to the government controlled environment for at least twenty years of his life. Though perhaps extreme, remember, Timothy McVeigh, recipient of a number of medals and an honorable discharge, was denied the burial rights that were guaranteed as a condition of enlistment. Surely, they can yank pensions on almost any grounds that they reasonably justify.
This leaves us with those who chose not to career, and since 1973 there has been no conscription (draft), so we needn’t address those who didn’t volunteer and deal only with those who volunteered to serve their country, did their duty, served their time, and got out to reenter civilian life. They have nothing to lose by participation with the militia, and they are not excluded by statute. Therefore, they are the only possible contingent of the Oathkeeper element that can relatively safely be assumed pure in their motivation.
With that one exception, they all have a conditioning in their lives that would suggest that they would tend to be inclined to a sort of special duty — infiltration of the militia — than they would to have of the pure motives of participation in the militia.
The Oathkeepers, by their oaths, only intend to “not violate their oath”. There is not provision in their corporate bylaws that provides for them stopping another person from violating his oath. The militia, on the other hand, having both helped in wresting control from England, and current situations, have been a mainstay, and by tradition as well as intent, are bound to support and defend the Constitution and their State’s constitution.
That being said, if Oathkeepers choose to participate in the events at Bunkerville, they should do so not as an Oathkeepers, but only as a member of a militia, which the Constitution of the United States and the constitutions of each and every state, recognizes as a lawful and protected right — a right of united self-defense. They should be relegated to duties without access to privileged information or command. And, as such, are subordinate to the command within the militia structure, not to the patriarch of the Oathkeepers. Oathkeepers may, by choice, be militia. However, militia members, who have taken the same oath, absent the requisite requirement to join and pay the dues, may not be Oathkeepers. So, which of the two MUST be the subordinate?