Oathkeepers Pull Out of Restore The Constitution Rally

imported post

It is becoming clear, through the study of Mike Vanderboegh.s rhetoric, that he is at the very least, a wack-job, but it is far more likely that he is a Hal turner-style fed-sponsored Agent Provocateur...

http://www.splcenter.org/get-inform...rowse-all-issues/2008/spring/russian-roulette

http://rawstory.com/2010/03/fbi-paid-racist-shock-jock-hal-turner-in-excess-100000/


They use similar language (actually, if you look at ther respective blogs, several key phrases" appear over and over again--verbatim--in both their writings). They both attempt to come across as being concerned with "liberty" and "freedom" but then, once they get their readers and listeners reeled in with their rhetoric, they sneak in their racist, violent, provocative innuendo. Vanderboegh is a mole of the most dangerous type, and should be avoided by any law-abiding, honest, civic-minded citizen.

I have a VERY bad feeling about both these marches in the DC area on the 19th. With all the media coverage lately demonizing the Tea Party, militias, and 2A groups, coupled with the recent admission my the media that liberal and "anarchist" activists are planning to infiltrate these groups and set them up, I fear that some Fed-sponsored CoIntelPro Agent Provocateur will do something REALLY stupid at one of these rallies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QpDvNtoU4U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQcF3TdkufY


I'm not worried about the media fallout from such false-flag incident. I think that eventually the Truth Will Out, and we will be victorious in re-securing the fundamental human rights to ALL US citizens as described in our Bill of Rights and Constitution.

What I'm worried about is the black-uniformed fellows wearing badges who will be statined with Barretts on the rooftops of DC and VA on that day. I fear for the safety and lives of my friends and fellow Civil Rights Activists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lon_Horiuchi

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G63FEamhpA0&feature=related


This movement (to restore the status of Citizen to all the People in the USA) is not being seen by the Government (and their puppet masters in NY, London and the Netherlands) as an uncomfortable ripple of social change like the Civil Rights movement of the 1950's and '60's. This movement is seen as a DIRECT THREAT to their century-old plan of global hegemony with the ultimate goal of a Planetary Neo-Feudalist Oligarchy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfG_AFPlcr8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2SGbaFq0yU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBF5DbPbg_A

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6Xs8bposCc&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kjsy2Z3kdI&feature=related


And we've seen in other nations that they are willing to do ANYTHING to protect that plan. over 1,000,000 Iraqi's have paid the price for the insolence of their ex-leader in daring to not join the IMF or kowtow to OPEC. The entire nation of Iceland was held hostage by London and the IMF. Greece has been threatened by these same entities with what amounts to a forclosure on the entirety of their nation. And we won't even talk about the end of Net Neutrality, the illegal monitoring of US citizen's telecommunications, and the persecution of Federal whistleblowers in the intelligence community...

As much as I would love to come to the rally in DC, it is a 6-hour drive for me, and I just can't afford the trip. I will be watching it on TV. And although I am hoping and praying that the "revolution will be televised", I hope it doesn't end up being the American Tienanmin Square...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1989

I sincerely hope the organizers of this event have people in the crowd to ferret out and secure the dozens (if not hundreds) of Agent Provocateurs that will be in your midst.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pl3_4BTOavY&feature=related


And I pray that you all return home safely, and without incident.

Good luck, and godspeed.

imported post

I respect everyone's right to have different opinions.

I wanted to read what was said about the breaking of the Democrats windows and found it here:

http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2010/03/to-all-modern-sons-of-liberty-this-is.html

From his blog, it appears that Mr. Vanderbough has made the determination that it is rapidly becoming too late to change things via the ballot box. It seems his Patriotic stance is rooted in history and he does make some compelling points.

I will have to read more at his site to make up my own mind as to his intentions and whatnot.

That being said, what is wrong with putting our government on notice that We the People are getting tired of the continued usurpation of our Rights, Liberties and Freedoms?

Wouldn't it be a good thing for our current government to see large groups, even if these groups do not totally agree with each other, coming together to express their opposition to the continued push towards collectivism?

Instead of presenting a united front, they see only fractionated groups. Such groups are easily run over or run around.

Why not have each groups speaker that doesn't agree with another groups speaker state a disclaimer when they spoke, something to the effect that they do not agree with so and so and here's why. They can make their point and if it is better, the people will agree. People are not lemmings, they can listen to someone's point of view and either agree or disagree. It's not that hard. We need to show that people can disagree but still come together to resist this government that has been growing and consuming our rights and freedoms for a long long time.

The people need to hear all points of view, even the ones they object to. They will ultimately make the determination of which one they agree with.

"Divide and Conquer", something we should not be doing to ourselves.

imported post

There is nothing wrong with varying opinions. Even if any of us disagree with those opinions expressed in this thread, we haven't started a set-to over them. The point is that this isn't the place to discuss how close we are or are not to 1776 Part Deux.

For those who advocate open carry and like what this guy has to say about bricks, I think that opencarryandbreakdemwindows.org is available.

Just a suggestion.

imported post

eye95 wrote:

There is nothing wrong with varying opinions. Even if any of us disagree with those opinions expressed in this thread, we haven't started a set-to over them. The point is that this isn't the place to discuss how close we are or are not to 1776 Part Deux.

For those who advocate open carry and like what this guy has to say about bricks, I think that opencarryandbreakdemwindows.org is available.

Just a suggestion.

Click to expand...

I never said anything about what I highlighted above. I just said that there are many differing viewpoints in the vast numbers of people voicing their opinions.

Sharing the podium with ONE speaker that some or many, according to your viewpoint, disagree with does not lump you in with their viewpoint. It just shows that the dissent is broad and the dissent has many players.

We must stand together and find common ground. That is all I'm saying.

If you want to see the disagreements, go on over to the Oathkeepers website and read the commentary from their own members on the issue of pulling out of the rally.

imported post

My reply was general and not directed at you.

imported post

Superlite27 wrote:

I am as well. I've attended TEA parties, I've made some anti-tax (not anti-government) signs and paraded around with the rest of my right leaning friends.

I do not OC during these events. This is a SEPERATE cause.

Firearms freedom is for EVERYONE. Even (gasp) LIBERALS!

When you are an activist for a certain cause the absolute WORST thing you can do is TIE IT LIKE AN ANCHOR to another cause.

Those who feel like making OC a part of the TEA party movement, tax demonstrations, or anti-government protests make it synonymous with those things. This TAKES IT AWAY from those who do NOT identify with the TEA partiers and conservatives.

Click to expand...

I saw people at yesterdays TEA party in Valparaiso, IN with signs saying global warming is a lie as one example of "different issues"... or is it?

After all Taxed Enough Already can applyto the carbin credit taxes, just like the taxes imposed on NFA items, ammunition ect. ect...

How about the tax on our Right to Carry a Handgun in Indiana? Why do we need a license tax?

While I appreciate the sentiment, a solid arguement can be made those issues do involve taxation.

~~~

I started open carrying before I ever heard of OCDO (and probably before it was founded). I'm not changing my attire for a hot day like yesterday just because some idiot may interpit it the wrong way.

I've got news for all of you, the people you are worried about, arent going to think any differently anyway. So why bother?

At yesterdays rally there were openly carried sidearms and I saw TWO openly carried AR-15's as well.

I also got a chance to have a nice discussion with a gentleman I am sure is a liberal. He asked me about my XD and asked about the "assault rifle" on the back of one young lady.

It was a great opportunity to speak to him and his female companion. His companion said she was "scared by it" and "worried". I looked at her and said, initally "Not so scared as to talk to me and stand in between us though?" At which point she realized she was standing inbetween us (we were 10 feet apart maybe) and chukled a bit.

From making the point about a car hopping the curb being able to kill many more people than my XD to askign what the difference between my sidearm and the cops (who were scattered around the square), they couldn't.

We had a great conversation and I ended it by relaying the fact to him that "my patients trust me with their lives in OR, why shouldn't I be trusted on the street as well?"

I think it was a good encounter, at least as good as it can be giventheir political leanings.

Also I had many thumbs up and at least a dozen people said to me "I should be OC'ing to". I also educated a few CC'ers about Indiana law as well.

The TEA party is about freedom and liberty. "Don't tread on me" is a BOLD statement. It's not just a cheap slogan. If the people using theTEA party name and the Gadsden flags don't like, they need to change it to "Please don't tread on me, I think". Don't tread on me means just that. It means today what it meant in 1773.

It is not a suggestion. It's a statement.

Oh yeah I am the TEA party leader*. Which means the TEA party is what I say it is.

*there is no TEA party leader, every single person involved is THE leader. So if you went to the rally, YOU are the TEA party leader too.

Gun owners, just like homosexuals, grandmothers, sisters, cops, lawyers, brothers, preists, green peacers are all welcome at the TEA party.

Don't tread on me.

imported post

Let's be clear that there's nothing wrong with being anti-government. After all, the federal government as it is now is anti-liberty. I'm against the federal government exercising power outside of its constitutional authority -- something it has been doing for a long time. It's a threat to our liberties.

So I'm anti-government to that extent. It's just that I advocate the reconstitution of the government by non-violent political processes.

imported post

I OC every day, why would I not OC at a Tea Party, I did today.

imported post

I've read through the comments on the OK site. I have a slighlty different take on why they are pulling out of the rally. I think the need to not support a radical speaker is a secondary issue. It might have just been the easy excuse. Reading the comments by high ups in the Oath Keepers organization it seems they have some inside intelligence relating to militias. It is against military regulations for active duty personell to be members of a militia. A lot of the Oath Keeper's membership are also active military. If the Oath Keepers are labeled by the government as a "militia" it completely ruins their core membership. If this was strictly a decision based on opposing views shared by a speaker at the rally there would be no need for these comments by high ranking members of OK talking about inside information from confidential sourcesandfears of the word "militia".

imported post

Racer X wrote:

It is against military regulations for active duty personell to be members of a militia.

Click to expand...

Citation please (IAW OCDO Rule 7)

imported post

Racer X wrote:

I've read through the comments on the OK site. I have a slighlty different take on why they are pulling out of the rally. I think the need to not support a radical speaker is a secondary issue. It might have just been the easy excuse. Reading the comments by high ups in the Oath Keepers organization it seems they have some inside intelligence relating to militias. It is against military regulations for active duty personell to be members of a militia. A lot of the Oath Keeper's membership are also active military. If the Oath Keepers are labeled by the government as a "militia" it completely ruins their core membership. If this was strictly a decision based on opposing views shared by a speaker at the rally there would be no need for these comments by high ranking members of OK talking about inside information from confidential sourcesandfears of the word "militia".

Click to expand...

The government can call an organisation anything they want. It doesn't actually mean they are correct.

IIRC, at one time the government called ketchup a vegetable for school lunch purposes. :banghead: That kind of undermines their credibility. NewSpeak is not truth.

imported post

Master Doug Huffman wrote:

Racer X wrote:

It is against military regulations for active duty personell to be members of a militia.

Click to expand...

Citation please (IAW OCDO Rule 7)

Click to expand...

A quick search found it here:


http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/generalinfo/a/stanconduct_4.htm

"Prohibited Activities. Military personnel must reject participation in organizations that espouse supremacist causes; attempt to create illegal discrimination based on race, creed, color, sex, religion, or national origin; advocate the use of force or violence; or otherwise engage in efforts to deprive individuals of their civil rights. Active participation, such as publicly demonstrating or rallying, fund raising, recruiting and training members, organizing or leading such organizations, or otherwise engaging in activities in relation to such organizations or in furtherance of the objectives of such organizations that are viewed by command to be detrimental to the good order, discipline, or mission accomplishment of the unit, is incompatible with Military Service, and is, therefore, prohibited."



I'm still looking for an actualy "military or DoD"site reference.

imported post

What you cited, of course, does not directly mention militias. And, naturally, all this hangs on what you meant by "militia."

Many groups that adopt the moniker "militia" do, in fact, fall into the categories of groups cited in your reference. Many will claim they don't.

Then there's the constitutional militia. Clearly, that is not the kind of militia you meant and would not be a group of the type mentioned in your citation.

The definition of "militia" is getting mighty cloudy.

On edit: Keep looking for the regulatory reference. I am sure it's there. In my twenty years, the bar against joining such groups was repeatedly mentioned.

imported post

Racer X wrote:

I'm still looking for an actualy "military or DoD"site reference.

Click to expand...

The OCDO Rule [font="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"]7)

If you state a rule of law, it is incumbent upon you to try to cite, as best you can, to authority. Citing to authority, using links when available,is what makes OCDO so successful. An authority is a published source of law that can back your claim up - statute, ordinance, court case, newspaper article covering a legal issue, etc.[/font]

imported post

eye95 wrote:

What you cited, of course, does not directly mention militias. And, naturally, all this hangs on what you meant by "militia."

Many groups that adopt the moniker "militia" do, in fact, fall into the categories of groups cited in your reference. Many will claim they don't.

Then there's the constitutional militia. Clearly, that is not the kind of militia you meant and would not be a group of the type mentioned in your citation.

The definition of "militia" is getting mighty cloudy.

On edit: Keep looking for the regulatory reference. I am sure it's there. In my twenty years, the bar against joining such groups was repeatedly mentioned.

Click to expand...

I agree completely. I just fear that it doesn't matter what definition we assign to any words. It matters what the powers that be decide a word or phrase means. The slippery slope is there. I can see a direct threat to active military members of Oath Keepers careers if anyone at the Pentagon wanted to "make and example".

imported post

True that. If your commander decides the group to which you belong and which calls itself a militia is one of those banned groups, you're in for a hassle.

imported post

Orphan wrote:

I OC every day, why would I not OC at a Tea Party, I did today.

Click to expand...

+1 I do too and I have open carried at Tea Parties, but I don't think John has a problem with Tea Parties.

I actually think twice if I have to think about wether or not I should carry my firearm somewhere, I more than likely won't go there.

imported post

OK, so we have competing theories as to why the Oath-keepers have pulled out of the event.

The core issue remains the same. Shouldopen carriers abandon the event because there may be repercussions brought on by bad press and linkage to aspeaker that some see asfomentingdelinquent activities?

imported post

Thundar wrote:

The core issue remains the same. Shouldopen carriers abandon the event because there may be repercussions brought on by bad press and linkage to aspeaker that some see asfomentingdelinquent activities?

Click to expand...

I would think the answer is obvious under the facts you state.

imported post

jpierce wrote:

Thundar,

My concern is not the fact that there might be attendees who make comments I disagree with. Rather it is the fact that an endorsed and invited speaker, who speaks with the full permission and knowledge of the rally organizers, has made those comments and supposedly will make more during his speech (which will be covered by the press extensively as being a rally of OPEN CARRIERS).

Imagine the press image of openly armed citizens applauding a speaker putting out the kind of rhetoric that we have heard from Vanderboegh. I imagine the anti-open carry legislation drafting would start the very next day in those states where constitutionally permissible.

Thinking of how serious the negative implications might be, are we sure this event isn't being hosted by the Brady Campaign?

Click to expand...

Mike,

I have been thinking about this a lot. I am not sure that I agree with your analysis, but lets assume that everything that you say comes true at the rally. There will be people open carrying at the rally that do not represent our movement in a favorable light. The press will draw their conclusionsthat those people are OCDO. Wouldn't it be better to have voices that boo, disagree and tell the press that this is not what OCDO is about?

I am not trying to be argumentative here, I really do care about open carrry rights.