The Bundy Affair – Oathkeepers vs. Militia

The Bundy Affair – Oathkeepers vs. Militia

Gary Hunt
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?

Related articles:

The End of the Bundy Affair (maybe)

The Bundy Affair – The Battle Continues

The Bundy Affair – Who Was Not in the Front?

The Bundy Affair – Is Anybody in Charge Here?

The Bundy Affair – Oath Keepers vs. Militia – Part II

Stealing Valor

The Bundy Affair – Vetting the Millers

The Bundy Affair – Answering the Most Common Question

The Bundy Affair – The Revenge of the BLM


  1. cav medic says:

    “That being said, if Oathkeepers choose to participate in the events at Bunkerville, they should do so not as an Oathkeepers.”
    Shit, you can forget that.
    I commented on another blog that stewie and ok co-opted defense of the Bundy family and ranch
    a day or two after the victory of 12APR14.

  2. Jim says:

    You’re splitting hairs Gary. Understand the distrust but no need to throw the irons in the fire first. Time to observe and acknowledge actions first before theories create distrust.

    • Gary Hunt says:

      As of April 12, the Game Is On. If we don’t watch carefully, we will find that the government his infiltrated and gained control of our movement.
      Read Vortex
      There is a link there into a study done of the infiltration by the government into the Anti-War movement in the sixties. Don’t think that they haven’t perfected their skills, since then.
      The article I refer to is Provoca

      • Cal says:

        Membership fees at from their website:

        Yearly Member (or Associate)

        $40.00 a year minimum donation. If you can give more, please do. Benefits include:

        Official Member status (or official Associate Member status if not current or prior service)

        Membership certificate suitable for framing

        Laminated membership card with sequential member number

        Access to our members-only national forum

        2 Oath Keepers bumper stickers and 1 back window sticker

        Color Oath Keepers brochures and Oath Keepers “push” cards (size of business cards) as an outreach “start up kit.”

        Oath Keepers DVD

        Pocket Constitution

        Free one month membership in the Pulse O2DA Armory. (link will be provided in confirmation email)

        Additional benefits yet to be determined.

        Please allow 4-6 weeks for membership packages to be shipped. Packages are put together and shipped by volunteers. Please be patient.

        Please make sure you input an accurate address to ensure shipment is received.

        Liberty Tree Sustaining Member (or Associate)

        For $7.00 a month you will become a Liberty Tree Sustaining member (or associate), you will receive:

        Liberty Tree Sustaining Membership certificate, suitable for framing.

        Special silver colored Liberty Tree Sustaining Member (or associate member) I.D. card, with consecutive membership numbers starting with: #Liberty000001…..(transferable to a surviving family member)

        10% discount on all O.K. merchandise

        10% discount on conference/convention fees

        Outreach start-up package (welcoming letter from the founder; push cards; tri-folds; bumper & window stickers and official pocket constitution). Those current members wishing to switch to the “Liberty Tree” plan will be given a $30.00 credit to be used in the merchandise store provided they still have at least four months left on their yearly membership.

        Free one month membership in the Pulse O2DA Armory. (link will be provided in confirmation email)

        Lifetime Member (or Associate)

        A onetime fee of $1,000.00 or $50.00 per month for 20 months. (Spouse is eligible to join for a onetime fee of $500.00 or $25.00 per month for 20 months).

        Lifetime serial number transferable in will or trust to descendent.

        Gold colored membership card with serial # preceded by “Life.” Life Memberships start at #Life 00001 and go up from there (Russell Appling was our first Lifetime member and is #Life 00001. What number will you be?).

        Lifetime membership certificate

        Solid silver Oath Keepers Lifetime Member challenge coin (delivered upon full payment or after twelve payments have been made)

        Information from 3 percenters, Sipsey Street Regulars who are actively defending the USA and the US Constitution:

        “There is no teacher but the enemy.” The Bundy Ranch Federally-Sponsored Cluster Coitus: Oath Keepers makes their case. My experiences and thoughts.

        “There is no teacher but the enemy. No one but the enemy will ever tell you what the enemy is going to do. No one but the enemy will ever teach you how to destroy and conquer. Only the enemy shows you where you are weak. Only the enemy tells you when he is strong. And the rules of the game are what you can do to him and what you can stop him from doing to you.” — Mazer Rackham to Ender Wiggin in Ender’s Game.

        Oath Keepers makes their case of their actions and reactions at the Bundy Ranch in this video. It is necessarily long, reflecting as it does the testimony of five participants and a discussion of how they came to the decisions that they did. That said, it is worth watching all the way through. Please do that now and then return for my comments.

        I have spoken with several independent militia commanders who spent time at the Bundy Siege, a couple of Three Percenters who were there from day one, and other Threepers and Oath Keepers who came later (none of whom are in the video). In addition, of course, I have my own experiences with — and up-close observations of — the personalities involved. These form the basis of my analysis below.

        First, it is necessary to describe how I came to be there and what my relationship with Oath Keepers was and is. As readers know, the way that I came to be at the Bundy Ranch to give a speech on 19 April was strictly coincidental. The Buckeyes, you may recall, decided to dispense with my services without telling me and I was ejected from their meeting. When Stewart Rhodes found out I was available, he asked if I would be willing to come out and speak at the Bundy Ranch. I do not ask for anything for my speeches themselves, merely content with being provided with transportation to and from and provisions for a hotel room or a place to crash in a private home so that I can get a shower, dress the wound on my back in a semi-sterile environment and sleep in a comfortable chair (I have difficulty sleeping laying down since the rerouting of my digestive system). That’s it. Generally I do not even ask for a rental car, content to depend upon catching rides with members of the host organization. Sometimes folks pick up the tab for my meals, sometimes not. Stewart agreed to these terms and paid for the economy tickets necessary to fly out to Las Vegas where he and Steve Homan picked me up at the airport for the ride out to the Bundy Ranch.

        Further, it is important to remember that I am not a member of Oath Keepers, although I have always believed that their work reminding folks of the ramifications of the oath they took to be among the most important of tasks. There are Three Percenters who belong to Oath Keepers and Oath Keepers who are Three Percenters. That is a given. But I decided from the first that it was inappropriate of me to join the organization, having staked out a different area of operations as it were in the fight to defend the Founders’ Republic.

        It is also important to recall that Stewart Rhodes, the Oath Keepers board and I have not always seen eye to eye on some things. You may recall that OK at first committed to support, and then pulled out of, the armed march in Northern Virginia back in 2010. At the time there were those who wanted me to — no, URGED me to — loudly denounce Oath Keepers in general and Stewart Rhodes in particular for that decision. I did not not do so. I have long had a policy, dating from my work with the constitutional militia in the 90s, that I do not shoot my own side’s wounded. I’m glad I had that policy, for Stewart Rhodes has come a long way since those days as a leader and the Oath Keepers are a valuable force in the fight for liberty. Those who accused Stewart then of being a coward did not see him later risk arrest last year at the hands of the Lexington, MA, police force when he refused their order to stay off the green and told them they would have to arrest him to stop him from administering the oath ceremony there. The Lexington PD, gritted their teeth and blinked, allowing the ceremony to go forward. That was entirely Stewart’s doing. No, in my experience, Stewart Rhodes is no coward.

        That said, Stewart stiffed me that first night at Bundy’s, since we drove directly to the camp so that he could relieve some of his guys on outpost duty, despite his own lack of sleep. I got what rest I could in the car. Where Steve Homan — the Vietnam vet in the OK video with the heart condition and an NVA bullet still lodged in his abdomen — slept I have no idea, undoubtedly on the ground where he had no business being. Okay, I thought, improvise, adapt and overcome, although I was convinced then and remain convinced throughout my experiences there that neither Stewart, nor Steve Homan, nor Jerry, nor any of Jerry’s command structure was getting enough sleep in order to make the best decisions. Tired commanders screw up. They should learn to delegate the routine stuff to subordinates even though it seems selfish, for it is a false economy to spare your troops some lost hours of their own sleep only to put them in harm’s way because you lack sleep yourself. Indeed, I spent much of my time with those men urging them to get more sleep. As near as I could determine, they ignored me, which undoubtedly played a part — a big part — in what happened subsequently.

        Given that US warfighters suffer from chronic sleep deprivation, they will almost certainly experience deleterious effects on performance. The most egregious example of the consequences of chronic and acute sleep debt is when combat troops fall asleep when they need to be vigilant. While less obvious, other effects of chronic and acute sleep debt such as microsleeps, lapses in attention, memory and judgment, alterations in mood, and degraded decision-making also have far-reaching consequences for combat effectiveness. Military leaders would never send troops into harm’s way without the safety afforded them by armor and other personal protective equipment; yet sending troops on missions when they are sleep deprived is equally as dangerous to themselves and to others in their organization. — The Role of Sleep in the Military: Implications for Training and Operational Effectiveness by Nita Lewis Miller, et. al., Pg. 42.

        It is important to remember that while OK did retain hotel rooms at a cheap casino — the Virgin River — in nearby Mesquite (including one room I shared with Steve Homan), they used the rooms mostly for giving their own members on the line a place to crash, refit and then go back into security role, not for the leadership to enjoy comfort while the membership slept in the dirt. This BS about Stewart and Co, “staying at the casino and gambling away 20K of the member’s money,” was to my experience a flat lie. In my time there, Stewart and the OKs were too damn busy to play the slots and I never observed any of them in the gambling area. As for me, my Grandpa Nace taught me that “gambling was a tax on the stupid,” and I have never been one to waste my fragile and thin resources on a sure bet to nowhere. It would have irked me greatly if I had observed such conduct on the part of Oath Keepers. I did not. The few times I had meals with Oath Keepers at the Casino, they ate modestly and mostly paid for their own. I know I did, most often having breakfast at McDonald’s across the street (I also kicked in $20.00 on a big bag of Egg McMuffins for the troops, which I dropped off to Jerry).

        For those having trouble visualizing the layout, there were three layers of security at the Bundy Ranch and one layer of insecurity. The first, and outermost, was the “scouts out” operation run by the Oath Keepers that kept track of movement on the roads and back trails leading up to the Bundy property. The second was the main camp posted above the side road leading to the Bundy Ranch, and the shed on the road below that served as the chow hall. Here, eventually, Jerry commanded a mixed and constantly changing force of Oath Keepers, Three Percenters, and the best of the militia formations. The last was the Bundy Ranch security detail itself, hired by the Bundys and providing, at least in the beginning, the liason between the other formations and the Bundys.

        Between the “scouts out” of the Oath Keepers and the camp containing Jerry’s CP was the “lower camp” (actually the first militia presence that the press and public saw) of what was dubbed “The Fruits and Nuts Brigade.” These were people who were not trusted by the other more competent formations, or did not themselves trust the other formations. These people were, in the main, excitable, prickly and resentful — and ever ready to talk to the press. There was literally nothing the other formations could do about, or with, them, so they pretty much did a great job of representing the worst face of the Bundy defense operation and the militia to the press. They were often the source of unfounded rumors and dangerous weapon handling. One night they almost started the next American civil war by getting spooked by the arrival of six Las Vegas metro cars traveling in fast convoy down the public road that led to the Bundys. Some of them arranged themselves in a hasty ambush and were only persuaded not to fire first by the intervention of cooler heads who were staying down there. Like I said, “Fruits and Nuts” — and a constant source of trouble.

        Which highlights a principal cause of the chaos and confusion throughout the events that I witnessed. This was a come-as-you-are party, with volunteers flooding in from all over the country. I am quite sure that the Bundys were both gratified by the turnout and frightened by the character of some of those who did show up. This probably caused the arrangement that developed, with separate formations, different commanders with different styles of command (or no style of, or ability to, command), who had difficulty communicating with each other and with no shared SOP or rules of engagement other than to “protect the Bundys” — an admirable if nebulous and constantly shifting target subject to the whims and agendas of individual “commanders,” some of whom commanded nothing but themselves and their own egos. That the Oath Keepers donated $12.5K to the Bundys to help them defray expenses says much about the generosity of Stewart and his people. That the Bundys later embraced a person that anyone with any experience could tell was a sociopath and provocateur is to me inexplicable. (I was told that Ryan is attending LDS meetings now with the Bundys. Whether that bit of chameleon trickery plays into their decisions is anybody’s guess.)

        From the first there was thievery in “Jerry’s camp.” A $900 Ipad belonging to a media guy hired by the Oath Keepers came up missing. One militia leader I talked to said that they lost nothing because they always maintained a constant guard over their stuff. Heck, somebody even stole my official Knob Creek coffee cup, so I am not surprised that when faced with the temptation of sophisticated electronics that Oath Keepers loaned to “Jerry’s Kids” that some came up missing.

        At this date, Jerry (and especially his conduct since the failed coup attempt by Ryan Payne –if that is his real name), remains a puzzle to me. An impressive former Marine NCO, he had a real command presence, the absolute loyalty of those who came into contact with him and, like most NCOs, an absolute inability to delegate responsibility and tasks. I include Stewart Rhodes in that critique as well. Both men took on too much themselves, got little to no sleep and made bad decisions as a result.

        Example: One afternoon a couple showed up at the camp: a young tattooed white male wearing a holstered pistol and his girlfriend toting a shotgun. In the entrance interviews, which Jerry insisted upon mostly conducting himself, it developed that the guy was an admitted felon, but he didn’t believe that it was constitutional to deny him his firearm rights. This came with a long, sad story about how they had quit their jobs to volunteer for the Bundys and do their part. Both Jerry and Stewart were inclined to accept their help until I called them over and explained the ramifications of accepting a self-admitted, armed felon into camp. They were impressed by the man’s “honesty and sincerity,” in admitting up-front that he was a felon. I said, among other things, that of course he admitted it. If he hadn’t, then they would have plausible deniability when later confronted about it. By stating it up front, it was actually worse for them because they could not later deny having known that fact.* “How do you think that is going to sound in the grand jury?” I asked them. They changed their minds and sent the couple on their way with gas money. I am convinced that neither man would have needed any assistance from me to take that decision had they been in their right minds. That is, if they had been even semi-rested and on the bounce, which commanders must be to the best of their ability if they are to carry out their solemn duty to do their best to take care of their people and execute the mission.

        *NOTE: Throughout my stay at Bunkerville I gave a lot of advice to men and women for whom this was their first rodeo. Among the most often repeated (second, I think only behind my constant harping to get more sleep) was the old Marine intelligence officer’s dictum when dealing with sources — “Why is this SOB telling me this, and why is he telling me this NOW?”

        As an aside, weapons handling in Jerry’s camp was terrible and I observed numerous unsafe practices about muzzle discipline with loaded rifles. It was a wonder that no one was killed or injured by a negligent discharge during my stay. As they say, if I may paraphrase, God takes care of drunks, little children and the American militia. I counseled some of these safety scofflaws personally and privately. Eventually I gave it up as wasted effort and just tried to stay out of the line of potential fire. The sight of a newbie clerk sitting at the check-in table in the CP wearing a loaded FAL on a sling in front of his body muzzle-up while he filled out new arrival cards was as comical as it was appalling. That this was apparently with the tacit approval of Jerry, whose life was also endangered thereby, can only be excused by extreme sleep deprivation, which as I have mentioned is itself a command failure.

        But this business of allying with the same guy — a likely federal provocateur — who tried to displace you at your job, and lying by omission and commission about Oath Keepers and the whole drone strike business at a joint presser with the same moke who stuck several knives in your back is inexplicable to me. One of the ploys of a sociopath or a provocateur is to shrink your perceived universe and get you reacting to him and his artificial constructs without reference to outside reality. At such moments you have to be able to have the presence of mind to step back out of the box that he has created for you so you can see the whole picture. It is evident to me that Ryan Payne (or whatever his real name is) is an expert at that trick. On my last day, the moke tried provoking me and I finally blew him off with the comment, “Well, like Grandpa Vanderboegh said, ‘Don’t try to to teach your Grandma how to suck eggs.” He thought I was joking and broke off the engagement. I wasn’t joking. This ain’t my first rodeo and I ran into pukes like him all the time in the 90s. I am convinced that if there had been more Bob Wrights at the event and fewer wide-eyed newbies a lot of this debacle would not have happened.

        Unfortunately Bob wasn’t able to get away from some serious work commitments to be there. A Bob Wright anecdote to illustrate my point: In 2005 when Bob became what amounted to operations officer for the Minutemen in one of their first border vigils, he discovered that in the bible college they were using as a dorm for volunteers that some idiots had taken the mattresses from the beds and blocked the windows with them “because the Feds are going to come in the night and throw grenades in the windows.” What Bob is reported to have said is not for delicate ears and the Minutemen volunteer roster was short a half-dozen idiots come the next dawn, but Bob did not, does not, EVER suffer fools gladly. We needed some hard heads and harder hearts like his at Bundy’s Ranch. Nothing illustrates this more than the reaction to the drone strike.

        Now, after talking to all the major participants in the Oath Keeper chain of decision and command regarding that remarkable and skillfully delivered piece of federal disinformation as well as some outside witnesses who were there when this came down, I am inclined to believe the Oath Keeper version of events as presented in the above video. Their failure was not one of cowardice as has been alleged. Stewart was sincerely motivated, I believe, by a concern for his troops, the Bundys and the innocents in the camps. The failure was one of lack of hard-headed analysis and an equal lack of hard-hearted decision taking.

        When I was told that Oath Keepers was actually reacting to such an obvious piece of federal disinformation, I exploded on the phone. The guy I was talking to said that yes, they had initially thought that it was disinformation but they had it confirmed from multiple sources (as Stewart explained in the video), one of whom “was in the Governor’s office” who had given them several smaller tips earlier that had all proven to be true. Of course it came from from the Governor’s office, I blew up, for only if it came from an absolutely impeccable source would you believe it. The use of a drone strike on American soil would cause such an outcry that even Obama would be impeached within a week. Did they think that such calculating bastards were really that stupid? Besides, let us assume for the purposes of argument that the information was true. If the enemy is willing to make such a fatal mistake, it is our duty not to get in the way of it. Sure, they kill the folks on the scene, I argued, but their entire regime would be swept away. Isn’t that our larger purpose? Indeed, I pointed out then and in subsequent conversations with others, our JOB is to fight and if need be to die interposing ourselves between the tyrants and the people. If someone is doing this and is unwilling to make that trade he should find another avocation. With the video explanation, I am mindful that Stewart was motivated by the highest concern for innocents and did not advocate the precipitate pullout as has been claimed by his federal enemies (Ryan Payne) and his erstwhile friends (Jerry). But the public reaction to inform the media (which we now know Jerry agreed to) was stupid. The smart thing to do was to make the adjustments that Stewart and Jerry did initially and then to sit down in the CP, drink coffee, “smoke ’em if you got ’em” and await events. If it was disinformation we win points for being smarter than the Feds think we are and if it wasn’t disinformation we REALLY win.

        The subsequent chaos and lack of discipline, including the wanton and unprovoked assault on a Vietnam Vet with a heart condition, is on Jerry’s shoulders. That little out-of-control thug of his damn near killed a good man, a hero in my eyes, who because of his health had no business being there yet was because he saw it as his simple duty. I took the measure of the man named Steve Homan during my stay there and I say without fear of contradiction that there is no finer American. Lord knows how much the stress of the whole experience took off his life.

        My final conclusion is that if Oath Keepers is guilty of anything it is that they were too trusting, too helpful and too eager to make peace with people who obviously had their own agendas, some simple thievery and others in service to their federal masters.

        The key is, will they survive and learn from the experience. In conversations with Stewart and other board members, I have learned that they will be after-actioning this cruel lesson taught by the enemy — and by people they thought were their friends. They will be developing rules of engagement and an SOP for future Bundy Ranches, and there WILL be future Bundy Ranches.

        Lesson One: Get some things in writing up front from the folks you intend to protect, establishing a clear-cut chain of command and authority for the various spheres of action. Don’t charge in without some vital issues clearly understood by all parties.

        Another lesson: maintain control of your supplies. People donated good money to put them in your hands and you have a fiduciary duty to them to spend them wisely and to prevent their theft by people with other agendas.

        Another lesson: Have a system of working with and integrating individuals and small units into larger ones, of vetting out the fruits and nuts and provocateurs and sending them on their way.

        Another lesson: The Feds won back all the ground they lost by their direct attack on the Bundys with an indirect campaign of subversion and disinformation. If they destroy the Oath Keepers along with the Bundys’ defensive arrangements it will be a huge win-win for them. They probably won’t make the first mistake again, except with truly low-hanging fruit. They WILL repeat the other successful strategy. We need to be wise when dealing with disinformation and just as determined in our ability to physically interpose ourselves between the iron fist of tyrannical government and their intended victims, even if that means our lives.

        There are many other lessons. The enemy has taught them to us at a great price at the Bundy Siege. The only question is can we be smart enough, self-critical enough, honest enough, to grasp them and to refuse to make such mistakes in the future. This is a long war, an eternal war really. The domestic enemies of the Constitution and the Founders’ Republic will be there until we defeat them — or we are ourselves defeated by our own failures to learn the lessons that they teach us.

    • Kyle Rearden says:


      I don’t think you are appreciating the gravity of the situation. How Oathkeepers was advertised to the Infowars audience originally was as a way of promoting civil disobedience by the rank & file LEOs & active duty military against their bosses. In other words, the whole point of Oathkeepers was TO DO NOTHING in favor of Leviathan.

      Contrast that with the whole point of Mike Vanderboegh’s concept of III%-ers. Those guys would (arguably) be the “militia” in consideration here; their whole purpose is TO DO SOMETHING. What the Bundy Affair really demonstrates is how this organization’s original purpose of “doing nothing” has inexplicably morphed into “doing something.”

      I don’t see how that is “splitting hairs” or “throw[ing] irons in the fire,” as you said earlier. If anything, it is precisely because of such observations and acknowledgement of actions, to paraphrase you, that Gary presents his findings as he has here.

  3. Greg says:

    Oath Keepers, well I got news for you, I AM Militia, I was there on Saturday the 12th, I saw no “Oath Keeper” Armed and ready to water the tree of liberty… I was/ am ready. These self grandizing posers need to step out of the picture, or join in at the ready. As stated many are ex LEOs, so they are not to be trusted in the first place.

    • TheRightSite says:

      Could not agree more. This reminds me of a classic divide and conquer tactic. Especially agree with your comment: These self aggrandizing posers need to step out of the picture, or join in at the ready. As stated many are ex LEOs, so they are not to be trusted in the first place.

    • Prepper says:

      The “oath keepers” bailed on April 26th under ‘False Flag’ of drone strike of their own making. They left with the 10k in donations intended for the patriot troops on the ground. I have friends there, and they were left with no support or money. “oath keepers” had promised to reimburse for travel expenses to Bundy Ranch. That did not happen. I donated several hundred $ to for the patriots. I have since had to wire $750 to my friends on the ground. Stewart Rhodes is a thief, liar, and a crook. He fled to Sin City partying with OUR money. There are photos of him with hookers. I may be able to present at some time. I also have access to a recording that I may share when approval confirmed.

  4. Thomas Nathan Thamas says:

    I am an Oath Keeper, and will participte in OAS in Washinton. I will stand with anyone, anywhere, at any time and give my life if nec to protect and defend the Constituition of The United States of America. It is really that simple.

    • Skip says:

      Sir –

      You canNOT support Operation American Spring (OAS) and NOT be in violation of your Oath. The Oath I swore in 1972 was to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” I firmly believe that I will some day answer to Deity for it. Maybe you swore a different oath?

      OAS is a blatant, public call for a coup d’tat against a duly elected, CONSTITUTIONALLY ELECTED, sitting administration. NO WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION is such an action condoned. Folks tend to justify their support of the OAS abomination by quoting the Declaration of Independence, to wit: “… That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government …” BUT the Declaration was (and is) superceded by the Constitution. The Declaration is WHY We The People choose to sever our bonds from the government, the Constitution is HOW We The People are to conduct ourselves subsequently.

      Participate in OAS if you feel you must, but please don’t pretend to assuage your conscience by wrapping it in your Oath, or claiming “patriotism” when in fact you’re proposing anarchy at best and a totalitarian “junta” at worse. I am most certainly NOT a fan of the current Administration, however our Constitution provides ways as to how they might be rightfully replaced. MY Oath will require me to be across the barricades from you.

      Please wave “hi!”

      • Cal says:

        @ Gary Hunt (Elias Alias my comment to you is found below this one), “I didn’t post one that came into the queue because it was espousing Vieira’s work, which I have found to be historically inaccurate”

        I also write. I came to pretty much the same conclusions that Vieira came regarding the Militia, the courts, treason, “emergency powers”, judges are allowed to hold their office as long as they use “Good Behaviour” in the courtrooms and that it is the PEOPLE who make that decision. I got to those conclusions from a different direction then Vieira took – the US Constitution, the framers, writings of that time, state debates, and those that the framers learned from. I am NOT a constitutional law attorney or an attorney of any kind, thank God!

        The Militia of the several states IS constitutionally assigned the duties to:
        – Enforce the US Constitution and each state’s Constitution,
        – Enforce and keep the “Laws of the Union” (which is constitutional laws ONLY),
        – Protect the country against all enemies both domestic and foreign, and
        – “to suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”.

        The Militia of the several states are “We the People” and the US Constitution requires us to be armed and trained for the purpose of participating when needed in the Militia.

        Joel Barlow, Revolutionary War veteran (wrote “Advice to the Privileged Orders, in the Several States of Europe”) diplomat, and American whose political writings were debated on the floor of Parliament said of the US Constitution: “… not only permitting every man to arm, but obliging him to arm.”

        George Mason, Co-author of the Second Amendment: “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”

        Thomas Cooley: “The right is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. . . . If the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for that purpose”.

        Samuel Adams: “It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control … The Militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no danger of their making use of their Power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them..”

        Patrick Henry: “If you have given up your militia, and Congress shall refuse to arm them, you have lost every thing. Your existence will be precarious, because you depend on others, whose interests are not affected by your infelicity.”

        Thomas Jefferson:“Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state.”

        Kentucky Revised Statutes: “The Governor is hereby authorized to enlist, organize, maintain, equip, discipline and pay when called into active field service a volunteer state defense force other than the National Guard…”

        James Madison: “An efficient militia is authorized and contemplated by the Constitution and required by the spirit and safety of free government”.

        James Madison: “… large and permanent military establishments … are forbidden by the principles of free government, and against the necessity of which the militia were meant to be a constitutional bulwark.”

        John Norton Pomeroy: The object of this clause [the right of the people to keep and bear arms] is to secure a well-armed militia…. But a militia would be useless unless the citizens were enabled to exercise themselves in the use of warlike weapons. To preserve this privilege, and to secure to the people the ability to oppose themselves in military force against the usurpations of government, as well as against enemies from without, that government is forbidden by any law or proceeding to invade or destroy the right to keep and bear arms.

        There are many more, but I believe I made my point about the Militia.

        @ Elias Alias, “We see an obvious challenge to federal interpretation of the Constitution which created idiotic agencies like BLM, ATF, DEA, IRS, and ilk.” And basically ‘we educate’.

        I like Oathkeeper’s but that does NOT mean that I do not question you about things done or NOT done as you well know. NOT Questioning things is what got us all here in the first place.

        What I believe the point if questioning OK is about is that once you took the lawfully required Oath, you are REQUIRED to SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE US CONSTITUTION

        • Cal says:

          (Sorry about continuing this in 2 pieces)
          What I believe the point if questioning OK is about is that once you took the lawfully required Oath, you are REQUIRED to SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE US CONSTITUTION which means when people are exercising their constitutional rights and are being physically attacked by traitors and domestic enemies YOU are to respond in a constitutionally responsible and determined way. It they attack is by traitors within “our” government then OK is lawfully REQUIRED by the personal responsibility put upon all Oathtakers to respond to that attack in a lawful manner, including force where necessary.

          What OK should have been doing, along with those reps, CSPOA, etc was filing charges against all those for every crime committed there on the part of the traitors and domestic enemies to the USA in and acting with the BLM in that and all instances. This had little to do with Oathkeepers as a group, but as OATHTAKERS as a group – two separate but overlapping things. YOUR, and all military – active or none, LEO’s – federal or state & active or not took those Oaths which made/make it THEIR PERSONAL responsibility to carry out the Oath.

          Think not? Then think again, because the reason the individual soldiers, etc can be held RESPONSIBLE FOR FOLLOWING AN UNLAWFUL ORDER instead of the organization – military or otherwise being held responsible – is because that Oath IS their personal guarantee that they/you will keep that Oath to Support and Defend the US Constitution.

          Dr. Edwin Vieira: “This has nothing to do with personalities or subjective ideas. It’s a matter of what the Constitution provides…

          The government of the United States has never violated anyone’s constitutional rights…
          The government of the United States will never violate anyone constitutional rights, because it cannot violate anyone’s constitutional rights. The reason for that is: The government of the United States is that set of actions by public officials that are consistent with the Constitution. Outside of its constitutional powers, the government of the United States has no legitimacy. It has no authority; and, it really even has no existence. It is what lawyers call a legal fiction.

          … the famous case Norton v. Shelby County… The Court said: “An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties. It is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”

          And that applies to any (and all) governmental action outside of the Constitution…”
          What are the defining characteristics of a limited government? They are its disabilities; what it does not have legal authority to do. Look at the First Amendment… What does it do? It guarantees freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of religion. But how does it do that? I quote: “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press” etcetera. “Congress shall make no law;” that’s a statement of an absence of power. That’s a statement of a disability. (End quote by Vieira)

          That is exactly what the OATH means. Long ago even the FBI said:

          “Domestic enemies pursue legislation, programs against the powers of the US Constitution. They work on destroying and weakening the Rights of the People guaranteed by the Constitution. Plus they create laws, amendments, etc that goes against the restraint on the three branches of our government by the Constitution”.

          And they said,
          “As Federal civil servants, we take an oath of office by which we swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. The Constitution not only establishes our system of government, it actually defines the work role for Federal employees – “to establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty.”

          The history of the Oath for Federal employees can be traced to the Constitution, where Article II includes the specific oath the President takes – to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Article VI requires an oath by all other government officials from all three branches, the military, and the States. It simply states that they “shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution.” The very first law passed by the very first Congress implemented Article VI by setting out this simple oath in law: “I do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States.”

          The wording we use today as Executive Branch employees is now set out in chapter 33 of title 5, United States Code. The wording dates to the Civil War and what was called the Ironclad Test Oath. Starting in 1862, Congress required a two-part oath. The first part, referred to as a “background check,” affirmed that you were not supporting and had not supported the Confederacy. The second part addressed future performance, that is, what you would swear to do in the future. It established a clear, publicly sworn accountability. In 1873, Congress dropped the first part of the Ironclad Test Oath, and in 1884 adopted the wording we use today.

          In the Federal Government, in order for an official to take office, he or she must first take the oath of office. The official reciting the oath swears an allegiance to uphold the Constitution.

          The Constitution only specifies an oath of office for the President; however, Article VI of the Constitution states that other officials, including members of Congress, “shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this Constitution.”

          The Senate then revised its rules to require that members not only take the Test Oath orally, but also that they “subscribe” to it by signing a printed copy. This condition reflected a wartime practice in which military and civilian authorities required anyone wishing to do business with the federal government to sign a copy of the Test Oath. The current practice of newly sworn senators signing individual pages in an elegantly bound oath book dates from this period.

          At the beginning of a new term of office, senators-elect take their oath of office from the presiding officer in an open session of the Senate before they can begin to perform their legislative activities. From the earliest days, the senator-elect – both the freshman and the returning veteran – has been escorted down the aisle by another senator to take the oath from the presiding officer.

          As required by Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution, Members of Congress shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution. Representatives, delegates, and the resident commissioner all take the oath of office on the first day of the new Congress, immediately after the House has elected its Speaker. The Speaker of the House administers the oath of office as follows:

          “I, (name of Member), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

          Representatives elected in special elections during the course of a Congress generally take the oath of office on the floor of the House Chamber when the Clerk of the House has received a formal notice of the new Member’s election or appointment from State government authorities. On rare occasions, because of illness or other circumstances, a Member-elect has been authorized to take the oath of office at a place other than the House. In those circumstances, the Clerk of the House sees to the proper administration of the oath.”

          The Founding Fathers agreed upon the importance of ensuring that officials promised their allegiance; indeed, very little debate occurred before the first Congress passed this statute. Although the wording of the military officer’s oath has changed several times in the past two centuries, the basic foundation has withstood the test of time. The current oath is more than a mere formality that adds to the pageantry of a commissioning or promotion or investment ceremony – it provides the necessary foundation for leadership decisions. (End FBI quote)

          What this all comes down to is that not only are Oathkeepers part of OK, but they are ALL also OATHTAKERS personally and lawfully bound to support and defend the US Constitution whereever the domestic or foreign enemies are working to destroy it in whatever manner is constitutionally appropriate.

          It seems as if the Oathtakers did NOT keep their Oath as sworn because they confused membership in OK and its declared objectives with their PERSONAL sworn responsibility. I was not there, but does this summarize the problem?

          I am sure I just pizzed off (miss spell deliberate) a lot of people, but I am not sorry if I did. Respond and show me how I am incorrect in this please.

      • Harold says:

        Yes right on, to do what they want is treason against the constitution, to declare elected officials you disagree with is no what freedom and this country is about

  5. Andy says:

    Sounds like some comments from people (some wackos) who either dont know what they are talking about concerning oath keepers members or just running their mouths trying to make themselves look impirtant. Because a person is current or prior military or law enforcement dies not mean they will not defend the country and constitution. Your assumption is total BS.

    • Gary Hunt says:

      The point, Andy, is that Oathkeepers, even if 95% are good guys, are in a position, or have previously been recognized, as patriots. Their purpose is not to Restore Constitutional Government, it is to “not obey unconstitutional orders”. Unfortunately, many in the LE community do so daily, as explained in the article. This is not to condemn Oathkeepers, rather that we must look at individuals who wish to join the ranks of those whose purpose is restoration of constitutional government with a critical eye (vetting them) rather than blanketly accept them into our ranks, as some of them may not truly be on our side, and they would not being violating their oath, as they see it, by infiltrating with intentions that were contrary to the purpose of the militia.

    • Elias Alias says:

      Thank you for your intelligent comment.
      Let us now see if Mr. Hunt will let an officer in Oath Keepers speak the truth here, or reject this comment by refusing to post it. I am guessing that he will allow this to post, because he does not know how to defend his errors.

      I find that it is a waste of my time to attempt to inform this site’s author, Gary Hunt, about anything, so I am not even going to try. I will however assure you that Mr. Hunt has illustrated grandly the fact that he does not know what he is talking about. Mr. Hunt does not represent Oath Keepers accurately – he’s not even close to understanding who and what we are. That would not be a negative on his part if he would just shut up about us. But he won’t, I’m sure, because he lacks wisdom. I notice that some of his readers here also lack wisdom. It is neither a crime nor a sin to live one’s life without wisdom, but to do so oft’ times reveals one’s sub-conscious states to astonished people who are left to wonder, if they waste their time on it at all, if this sort of person even knows how deeply runs the current of his ignorance.

      Note to any reader interested: I am the editor for Oath Keepers’ national website. I am a member of the Board of Directors at Oath Keepers. I have been with Oath Keepers since its founding and am an original/founding Board member. I can assure you that Mr. Hunt has very little actual knowledge of Oath Keepers and in his article he has written a few things which are flat-out wrong and other things which are not pertinent. Example: He has totally missed the nature of our “Associate Members”. Our primary members are current-serving police, firefighters/first-responders, military and Veterans and retired services personnel. Our Associate members are equal to our full/primary members, pay the same dues ($40.00 per year or Liberty Tree sustaining membership dues of $7.00 per month. Any American citizen may join if one is willing to live by our by-laws as published on our website. So Mr. Hunt does not know what he’s talking about, regarding memberships in Oath Keepers. We also have Lifetime memberships which are expensive. We are an educational organization, not a militia. We are calling for the return of the Constitutional Militia as required in the Constitution. We co-produced the new movie documentary on the Constitutional Militia, the film named “MOLON LABE: How The Second Amendment Guarantees America’s Freedom”. That movie is based on Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr.’s book, “The Sword And Sovereignty”, available at Amazon dot com. Here is the link to the movie: So we are big on the WHOLE 2nd Amendment, including the first part which discusses the necessity for the people to be their own “homeland security” by retaining the militia as a part of their culture. We are pushing for the return of the Militia, but we are not a militia. I repeat: we are an educational organization. We also are the liberty movement’s premiere Psy-Op organization, and we have powerful impact in Washington D.C. by educating people at the local/County level.

      Here is a novel idea: Anyone wishing to learn more about Oath Keepers should begin at the Oath Keepers national website.

      I can be reached there by clicking on “Contact” just under our site’s header. Address message to “Elias” and it will reach me. As I mentioned on another of Mr. Hunt’s misinformational articles, “Truth is what remains when all illusion has been stripped away.” Ain’t that the truth? 😉

      Oh. And about my personal patriotism – I am an honorably-discharged US Marine and Veteran of the Viet Nam war, have started and owned three small businesses, and am a happy grandfather who will honor my Oath to this day. I fought communism and ignorance in Viet Nam, and I will fight communism and ignorance here in America. I will not be a tool of oppression, but will instead resist oppression. That is why I led the Oath Ceremony for Oath Keepers’ fifth anniversary as an organization at the Bundy Ranch in Bunkerville, Nevada, this past Saturday, April 19, 2014.

      Elias Alias, editor for Oath Keepers

      • Gary Hunt says:

        I will post this out of consideration for your previous comments. I didn’t post one that came into the queue because it was espousing Vieira’s work, which I have found to be historically inaccurate, as well as his rather shallow bastardization of Committees of Safety.
        You claim that I erred in my representation of Oathkeepers. I explained that there were Associate members, though I didn’t address them beyond that point. Also showed the dues amounts, though I chose not to address the $1,000.00 life membership. I see neither of those as “sin”.
        I took the “Purpose” verbatim from you page, though I have been informed by a number of people in various discussions that your primary purpose is education. I suppose that I would have to be a member to understand that the purpose is other than what was presented, as well as to gain some knowledge through that education.
        My article did address what I saw as important. Do you deny that LEO members would ever work for the government by infiltrating militia groups? Do you deny that if things get hot, participation in such an event as the Bundy Affair might result in denial of pension to a retired military member? Do you deny any of the other possibilities that I presented in the article?
        Now, based upon the written purpose, “to not obey unconstitutional orders”, and the purpose of education, do you mind if I ask you which of those, or any other purposes, would give rise to Oathkeepers direct participation in the Bundy Affair? You see, that is my dilemma. I see nothing in your purpose(s) that warrants your involvement.
        So, though you have chosen to denigrate me (ad hominem) by your suggestive remarks, I will stand by what I wrote until such time as what I wrote is refuted, not by general proclamation, rather by specific citation of what I said and direct response thereto, substantiated by something more than just your word.
        Gary Hunt
        Outpost of Freedom (since 1993)
        RVN ’66-’67

        • Elias Alias says:

          Gary Hunt, why do you feel qualified to judge the works of Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr.? Jesus Christ, Mon! What are your qualifications? Have you read his books? Have you written any books? Have you written any rebuttal of his works?

          I am a personal friend of Dr. Vieira and I am an associate producer on the film MOLON LABE, as you can see in the film’s opening screen-credits. MOLON LABE is based on Edwin’s newest masterpiece, “The Sword And Sovereignty”. I am not saying the man is perfect, but I will directly challenge you to show me where he may be in error on anything – and I do mean “anything”. Do you have a specific accusation that he is wrong about a specific thing, or is your dislike for him merely “generalized”? I will be glad to take your critique of his work to him so that he can answer your complaint(s), if you’d like to go toe to toe with him. That can certainly be arranged. Meanwhile, the man has singlehandedly ushered in the most powerful case for re-instituting the Constitutional Militia of the several States, and I’m wondering why you cannot support that?

          I have very limited time at present. I will try to answer a few of your points. You said:

          “Do you deny that LEO members would ever work for the government by infiltrating militia groups?”

          Of course “law enforcement” (as well as other federal and State “agencies”) will infiltrate any group which challenges the berserk federal government. I’m very familiar with COINTELPRO since it was exposed back in the 1970s. I have a remarkable library on CIA and Intelligence Community history in the USA. Hell, even Oath Keepers is infiltrated. Any Constitutional group or org is infiltrated. You and I both know the reasons why. What baffles me is that you know that I’m an officer in Oath Keepers and yet you would ask me such a question. LEO members are not the only ones who’ve infiltrated every liberty group in America. They also have surrogates, informants, snitches, and paid private-sector companies from the corporate world spying on all of us. That is one reason (one of several) why Oath Keepers is a Psy-Op organization. We are the cutting-edge Psy-Op organization working in America today on behalf of the Constitution. Our best tools are not visible. We are highly successful at MindWar. If you would quit fighting us you’d finally come to see why you should support us. We are literally removing the police and military out from under the control of the new world order’s one-world government. We work closely with PANDA and the Tenth Amendment Center and FIJA and GOA and any number of groups and orgs.

          You said:

          “Now, based upon the written purpose, “to not obey unconstitutional orders”, and the purpose of education, do you mind if I ask you which of those, or any other purposes, would give rise to Oathkeepers direct participation in the Bundy Affair? You see, that is my dilemma. I see nothing in your purpose(s) that warrants your involvement.”

          Gary, we are proactive when the activity can serve as an educational instrument for the general public or for our target audience, which is soldiers and cops and firefighters/first-responders. We marched on CPS in New Hampshire, we marched at Tuscon for the widow of Jose Guerena – remember this?

          The Bundy Ranch’s twenty-years-long fight with the federal government over “who owns the land?” is a very dynamic teaching moment for all Americans who own (or think they own) their homes. We see an obvious challenge to federal interpretation of the Constitution which created idiotic agencies like BLM, ATF, DEA, IRS, and ilk. We see a rancher with the backbone to stand up for the States’ respective rights to own the land within their borders except for those items listed in Article I, Section 8. It is a teaching moment, and we see that clearly. We immediately raised more than twelve thousand dollars to help support the citizen and militia presence there to defend the Bundys. We furnished the generator for the headquarters camp. We brought in State-level legislators from various States and we brought in Oath Keepers and CSPOA Sheriffs to stand with Bundy. It is one of the most dynamic educational events of this new young century. So Oath Keepers jumped in immediately. Our support for Cliven Bundy and his fight against the BLM reached millions.

          So let me ask you one question please – do you oppose Oath Keepers’ involvement at the Bundy Ranch? If so, why? Thank you for your response.
          Elias Alias for Oath Keepers

          • Gary Hunt says:


            Why do you not think that I am qualified to judge Vieira’s work? It does appear that you expect credentials to be necessary to have an opinion. Well, over the years, I have (unlike Stewart) found that patriotism doesn’t pay, so I don’t charge. That does not mean that I am an idiot, rather, that I put patriotism above dollars. However, I have an extensive library, many of the books first published before the Civil War. I have other resources, and continue to study the Founding Era, extensively. So, let’s go to Vieira. His first biggy was his Committee of Safety page (that’s the one that used to, and ,may still, carry, allegations that I was John Doe #4 in the Oklahoma City bombing, though he didn’t write the article. However, I can safely assert that he has read on one book on Committees of Safety (The Provincial Committees of Safety of the American Revolution” by Agnes Hunt (no relation). Because everything that he said is either from that book, or manufactured (as the committees were peopled with existing legislators). But, those where the Provincial Committees. The local and county Committees have been a subject of interest of mine since 1993, and I have written fairly extensively, though only via fax and on line, on that subject. He misses the point of the history and concept of Committees, completely. That does not bode well for someone who asserts authority upon a subject.

            Have I written a rebuttal? No, that is not my style. I don’t like passing contests. I also don’t attack other patriots, and principle I have adhered to with the single exception of Linda Thompson. So, and rebuttal has been verbal, with people who talk with me on the subject, or in private emails.

            I was directed to another book (it may have been an article) by Vieira a couple of years ago, that was on his webpage. I read it and saw a circular reason, where he presents a number of positions, supports none with reasoning, and then jumps off an expects you to follow with an assumption that the pint had been made. It is a style that I abhor, and is often referred to as “obfuscation”.

            I have read some of what he wrote on the militia –I think it was something about the “sword”, which used the same tactic, and failed to even present their relationship to the local Committees (at least as far as I read, though this point is instrumental). My judgment was that it had, at best, a textbook assessment of militia.

            Now, this is the first time that I have publically refuted his writings, but I have come to detest the name. He says, or leads us to, what we want to hear, and we except it as a substitute for the truth. No, to substantiate my point, I will refer you to a book, “The Minutemen” by John Galvin., which documents the relationship that Vieira chooses to ignore, between civil authority and militia. This concept remains in many of the early state constitutions, which concept begins with the Magna Carta. I trust that these two examples are sufficient to your request for examples, as I, too, have other things to do. I will, however, respond, if Vieira wants to refute what have said.

            Your personal friendship notwithstanding, I trust that I have a right to judge, regardless of my credentials. However, I will not judge you by your association with Vieira.

            I, too, “have very limited time at present. I will try to answer a few of your points.”

            Regarding my question, “Do you deny that LEO members would ever work for the government by infiltrating militia groups?’, you replied in the affirmative, though qualified. That is my point. If membership in OK is accepted, without question, then we are more than likely going to be compromised. Perhaps, too, even membership should raise a question requiring a thorough background check before acceptance. Most militia have already vetted their members, so though there is a possibility, it is probably lower than it would be with Oath Keepers. I have heard that you have 40,000 members, though I don’t have exact figures. It seems that this is information that you don’t want out. Additionally, there is no breakdown of membership. The number of LEO members may exceed 50% ,which would mean that there are 20,000 members who should raise serious concern, until vetted or otherwise proven not to be. My estimates, based upon various sources (See Vortex) is that the patriot community groups can expect an infiltration rate of from 10% to 60%., depending mostly on the type of organization. However, these organizations should vet their own, reducing the impact, or requirements, in a situation such as these past weeks. Even then, e must not let our guard down, however, the likelihood of problems is, numerically, higher in the Oath Keepers than most other organizations. Oath Keepers, however, chose to “parachute in” and assume command, mostly separating themselves from other units. Which, in itself, should raise additional question, since the coordination and security of the event is to be shared, not commanded because someone asserts authority.

            You go on to mention, ” We are the cutting-edge Psy-Op organization working in America today on behalf of the Constitution.” I raise, again, the question as to which Constitution you are working on behalf of. Briefly, since I haven’t written that article, yet, is it the one that says that arrests can be made without warrant, and searches, likewise? If so, those who accept that will have a much greater difficulty in being truly on our side.

            You responded to my question, “Now, based upon the written purpose, “to not obey unconstitutional orders”, and the purpose of education, do you mind if I ask you which of those, or any other purposes, would give rise to Oathkeepers direct participation in the Bundy Affair? You see, that is my dilemma. I see nothing in your purpose(s) that warrants your involvement.”

            Your answer stated that your participation at the Ranch was “educational”. What is this? A field trip? Though not questioned in the original article, my question in this discussion still stands. It sounds like either rationalization, or an effort to fund-raise. There was no need to “educate” those on the ground, as I assume they understand the correct Constitution far better than most Oath Keepers. However, this leads to another question.

            Why is Oath Keepers now considered persona non grata at the Ranch?

            And, though I don’t know the final result, I understand that Oath Keepers was beginning to remove equipment ad supplies, when they left. Whether they were returned, in whole, or in part, I have yet to have the time to look into. So, we have another question.

            Since the Oath Keepers claim to have (a few days ago) raised $15,000, it is apparent that the money would cover the cost of equipment and supplies, so why even begin to motion removal of same? And, where has that money gone? Is it committed to those who continue to stand vigilant at the Ranch, or is it for the coffers of the Oath Keepers (making them also money keepers)?

            Then, you asked me, “do you oppose Oath Keepers’ involvement at the Bundy Ranch? If so, why?

            I believe that the answer was included in the article, in the last paragraph. However, since many don’t read the whole of my rather lengthy article, I said that they should subordinate to the militia. That would be for the reason stated above.

        • Dusty Rhodes says:

          Here’s the problem, folks. The word came in that a drone strike was authorized on Bundy ranch by our Constitution-loving AG and the (p)resident. In the real world, there’s NO defense against same & there’s nothing to be gained by standing around and taking a hellfire missile up the azz despite all the brave talk in this video. That just tells me that somebody here is as clueless as the taliban. Ask the taliban how well this kind of bravado works. Oh wait! you can’t. Thos who have tried that are dead. The best defense against such an event is to make yourself a hard target. People in a group in a remote locations don’t qualify as a “hard target”. People scattered in an urban environment do. ’nuff said?

          Next, I’m an non-signed Oathkeeper. I say “non-signed” because although I adhere to their oath, my name will appear nowhere, for obvious reasons. I have raised my hand 4 times. That oath doesn’t have an expiration date. And…I resent and disagree with the postulations of this article. I am former LE on two levels, state reserve deputy and Federal DoD cop. I have been both a state fire officer and as Federal fire dispatcher. I hold lifetime certifications in both realms. I am also a retired firefighter and experienced paralegal. I am “former” LE because I chose to NOT re-up my PC 832 certification when it expired as I could not support the department to which I was formally allied and had moved out of the area.

          I am “former” Federal because I refused to comply with unconstitutional directives in which my side was supported by over 14 pages of case law citations & statue authorities going clear up to SCOTUS. The problem with being an experienced paralegal is that you often know more than your bosses do. That is the entire idea behind being an Oathkeeper, is it not; to NOT obey illegal orders?

          As for your assumptions that military wouldn’t support, well I guess that you don’t know the military folks very well. They’re overall sick to death of this commie/muzzie/homo junta and a large percentage are not going to re-up because of them. They want to see them G-O-N-E! They have sworn an oath to protect the Constitution against this kind of riff-raff. Many take their oath seriously. Most officers don’t seem to or the muzzie/homo/commie would be gone by now.

          Next, Your “never leave fallen comrade in the field” is all well and good but sometimes reality dictates that you pick them up on a non-immediate basis. For example, if the guy is trapped under an overturned helo that you can’t right, and you need 4 more people to turn it back over, how are you going to get 4 more people by sitting there with him watching him bleed out? And if he falls into the hands of the enemy, what choice did you have? Stay there shooting as he bleeds out so that BOTH of you can fall into enemy hands and/or die? And if you have 1 of you and 15 dead guys and there’s an enemy column heading for your unit’s laager area, are you going to go drag dead bodies into a pile or are you going to skedaddle yourself out in front of said enemy to warm the LIVE people of the impending danger? If you have one live person to get to an aid station, are you going to let him die while you haul others into a pile?

          If you know that you’re very likely about to be on the receiving of something ugly, it behooves the leadership of (you) to see to it that you’re not there when said “ugly” gets there. There’s nothing to be gained by sitting under an artillery barrage when you can move a click away from your location or scatter to a rally point to NOT be there when they put steel on target, your just vacated position. If others are not bright enough to mitigate such a risk, well then the results are upon them, literally.

          But I can tell you this: No Oathkeeper, no citizen, no militia man or woman and no patriot is any good to anybody dead. You can’t carry the fight, the torch or your buddies if you’re a smoking hole in the ground.

          • Gary Hunt says:

            Interesting that you are the first person to bring the president into the authorization. Do you know something that nobody else does?
            If so, why and how?

          • Curtis says:

            1. We might die. RUN!

            2. The shot heard around the world Part II probably won’t happen because… RUN!

            3. You can never come back to fight another day if you keep on… RUN!

            4. FedGov new psyops… say we’re going to drone them and watch them… RUN!

            5. When ‘ugly’ comes, don’t engage… RUN!

            6. FedGov is to powerful… RUN!

            Anyhow. When I heard about OK’ers in its early days, I joined up. Man, me a few other ex-mils would go round after round after round with the current serving LEO’s. It never ceased to amaze us how they would vehemently justify their unconstitutional acts. Going so far as to say that, “We don’t make the laws, we just enforce them. If you don’t like the laws, change them… and we won’t have to enforce them.” Maybe one of the threads that I remember at OK’ers is still there entitled “Damn 5-0”. So, what eventually happened, is that the LEO’s and their gyrating loins squad started crying to Stewart and that dead green beenie and started purging those who dared to question these LEO’s oath to the constitution.

          • Jester says:

            According to the mission statements of the Oathkeepers organization, there is no mention whatsoever of it serving as an organized militia to respond to exigencies. So when the call went out among Oathkeepers to move to support the Bundys, each member arrived in their capacity as a private concerned American citizen. If any Oathkeepers arrived as a group who had done any local regular training together as a militia type cell, then that had nothing to do with the Oathkeepers org. On the scene, the Oathkeepers appeared to some degree to do educational outreach, which is fine. They also received donations from membership and donated in some way to the efforts on the ground. And many if not all considered themselves willing and able to be part of the overall militia efforts.

            According to Stewart Rhodes he decided that the tip he received had enough credence in the sense that his intelligence officer determined that the informer truly believed the DOD whistleblower believed what he was saying. What none could determine was whether the DOD employee was truly knowledgeable as to whether or not the threat was real, or was just set up to blow the whistle in order to create a difficult decision at the Bundy ranch. So Steward erred on the side of caution and brought the threat to light. The problem seems to have occurred where there was no consensus among the commander and co-commanders as to how to respond to the threat. And at some point many of the Oathkeepers (and possibly others they influenced) decided to scatter the force just in case, and the head commander did not want it that way.

            Dusty makes good points about the tactic of splitting the forces. However if I was in charge, I would consider that it may be a ploy to do just that, to get as many men as far away from the ranch as possible in order to weaken the defenses for a ground strike. And I would hate to be forced to lose a large percentage of men, who were already assigned and scheduled for various duties. Apparently whatever discussion took place on this issue was not enough to derive a mutually agreeable course of action. The Oathkeeper members who left for nearby motels are rumored to have taken certain items with them, items that may have been paid for by Oathkeeper donations, but were considered vital by the Ground commander. In any event, it is too bad something could not have been worked out.

            This event was unique and unusual requiring many various groups and individuals who never worked together to instantly surrender to a command structure they may not have been used to. Then throw in the likelihood that some groups might be infiltrated with provocateurs or perhaps harbor hotheaded egos who don’t work well with others. Most conflicts will not even arise if command structures are familiar and can be accepted without reservations. I look forward to Gary Hart’s upcoming article regarding an “organizational plan for militia response”. Any well reasoned presentation that can speak to the unique challenges faced by disparate groups converging to defend Americans under threat at a moments notice could be shared widely and offer a foundation for discussion and understanding to smooth the way in the future.

    • Kyle Rearden says:

      Maybe you should read Dr. Roger Roots’ “Are Cops Constitutional?“, which was published in Seton Hall Constitutional Law Journal back in 2001. I think after reading it, you’ll seriously reevaluate the way you think about the boys in blue.

      • Elias Alias says:

        Thank you for spreading the works of Roger Roots around on the Net. Roger and I are good friends. He lives on one side of the Bozeman/Livingston (Montana) pass and I live on the other. We see each other at times in Helena at our State legislature, and we sometimes see each other at other events around the State. I love the guy’s writings. Roger and I were introduced years ago by Don Doig, who is one of the two founders of FIJA. (Fully Informed Jury Association –
        Don Doig still holds a seat on the Board at FIJA, and Roger Roots works with FIJA as an attorney.

        That said, I would like to help you awaken to a finer point of observation. Dude, I’m the guy who wrote “An Empire Strikes Home” for Oath Keepers.

        What you do not need to teach me about police abuse of power would fill several boxcars. I’ve experienced bad cops up close and personal and I know damn well how bad some of them can be. But – are you ready for a novel idea? – does it not make sense to you that someone take the thugs by the hand and teach them about the higher authority of the US Constitution, and show them why they should not violate fellow citizens’ rights? Or would you prefer to just shoot it out with the cops? Personally, I’m for teaching them how to get outside that awesome training and brainwashing and conditioning they go through, so that they can become real human beings once again, which most were before they joined the force and got “trained”.

        Here is a good example of what Oath Keepers and CSPOA actually does:

        Oath Keepers has thousands of cops, Sheriffs, and soldiers (as well as scores of thousands of Veterans) in our ranks, and each of them stay busy passing the word about the Constitution to their fellow peers. We need for people to support this kind of work instead of attacking us for trying to get rid of the thuggery presently infesting our “law enforcement” community.

        Can you possibly have any problem with the kind of work we’re doing? Why not help us, Bro? Why take sides against us?

        Elias Alias

        • Gary Hunt says:

          I, too, have been subjected to that abuse. The door (unlocked) of my office was kicked in and two cops, pistols pointed at my head, came to arrest me on a failure to appear. That FTA was because I was in Waco, covering that story. I contacted the court and asked for a continuance (the prosecutor had already had one continuance). I was sent the paperwork (fax) and filled it out, striking out the “rights” that I would relinquish to obtain the continuance. The rejected my request, leading to what has just been addressed. That was before Oath Keepers came into existence. This is not the only instance, but perhaps the most provacative.
          But, when there are bad cops, why to OKs turn their heads and not charge and arrest them for so doing? Brotherhood? How strong is that brotherhood, if a shooting war starts? Which side will you be on? How do we know who is on our side and who is not?
          I will be writing about “The Three Constitutions”, soon. I did write a short response on The Constitution Club that addresses that subject. Once written (and, that need to write it became apparent in these recent discussions), it will further clarify mo concerns by blanket acceptance of an OK card as a right of entry into a militia camp, where the potential for force or violence is present.
          Our world did change on Saturday April 12, 2014. As such, though education may prevail, at least to some, those on this side need to begin to act in a security responsible manner. There is, especially now, a need to move from training to reality. The game is on, and we have the psychological advantage. We must not lose that. The requires a new set of rules – that don’t exclude OK, rather, they will, be association, start with a degree of suspicion.
          Best example is that some OKs stayed at the Ranch while most bugged out. Those who stayed have demonstrated what those who bugged out did not.
          Finally, I have no objection to what you are doing, save consideration that there are three constitutions. In fact, I encourage you to continue. That does not reduce the need for heightened concern on our side, so I remain un-phased by your pleadings.

  6. Larry says:

    Anyone who is intersted in militias hasn’t seen the video “Molon Labe” should see it. It is based mostly on the scholarly work of Edwin Viera, and Stewart Rhodes, the founder of Oath Keepers, has LOTS to say in it about why the militia is “necesary to a free state.”

    Regarding the abuses of law enforcement, how does anyone expect to reach them with the Oath Keepers message if they are not allowed to participate? There is little hope for most of the large metro departments, but there IS hope among rural LEOs, where gun culture and patriotic values still exist. Of course the “good ol boy” networks of rural PDs can be just as bad as the mafia-gangster attitudes of metro ones. But there are still decent folks out there who actually became cops to defend the life, liberty, and property of their communities.

  7. Ronald says:

    I am an oath keeper from the Boise chapter. never to be construed as a militia. I enter a into a totally different group called ‘patriot Cells’ these were began before the Militias were formed as the British would find colonists in meetings and drag them through the streets and more.
    I believe that when the time comes some of us will be for and some against. this Tyranny has been able to divide the citizens greatly.
    Here in Idaho organizations we made to fight this tyranny became unwieldy as agent provocateurs would take over. In the PC we bide our time and build the ability to support.
    I have questioned the reason for Oath keepers but if people want to come together under an ideal then so be it well need the support in time. But remember the initial fight will be internal as those of greater ego will become the leaders its natural. lets call them the A-male. and also in this mix will be the very people who are against us as they will hide in the membership. My point here is to give them also the chance to see our side for when the chicken necked narcissists who control the narrative of this nation are done even those Brown shirt slaves will be taken down ( this refers to Hitlers civilian force now Obamas)
    God is watching and waiting for what we respond with. here’s where prayer always helps.

    • Gary Hunt says:

      We had formed such a team, many years ago. We called it Security Team, as it did not meet the criteria of a militia, but was a closed unit that has results, as can be seen at that link.
      April 12, however, did change things. Those cells can remain intact, but the time for militia has come, and they must be able to work together. I will be posting an “Organizational Plan For Militia Response”, shortly, to aid in coming together from various corners and quickly becoming organized.

  8. Ranch Warrior says:

    Gary, thank you for a very inciteful article. I understand the vehemence on the part of all the participants in this discussion. Having been an actual participant at both the confrontation in the Wash, and now going up this Friday to the Ranch for the 3rd time, I believe I can bring some light to this discussion.

    There were several organizations who disgraced themselves during this event! Unfortunately the OKs was one of them. Leaving the field, and those who you had pledged, to hide in a motel room nearby, at the expense of their members, was an unconscionable act! Your people ran from the field of battle, which in itself is a terrible act of cowardice!
    This is not meant in any way to defame the brave men and women OKs who came out to defend freedom and a wonderful family, because as in any structure, the leadership is responsible for the actions of its people. So, if you were ordered by the OK leadership to abandon your posts, no one can condemn you for following orders, or even for ignoring those same craven orders, and standing your ground as some did! However, your national leadership should not only be ashamed of themselves, but they should be very carefully scrutinized by the membership as to their qualifications, and fitness for leadership!

    I am sorry that will rub many of you the wrong way, but you did not see the militia packing up and high-tailing it to safety! And, I do not believe that their leadership would have ever issued those orders to abandon that family to their fate, under ANY circumstances! Especially, if we believed that the Intel was real! This “Sanctity of Purpose” is exactly what differentiates the “REAL” militia from the keyboard commando organizations, and the posers! In addition, any militia leadership issuing such an order would be removed immediately by any “REAL” militia citizen-soldiers!

    Remember, it was the Citizen-Soldiers who stood, while the supposed professionals left! That is the now the OK legacy, unfortunately!

    The next big issue deals with the two different organizations who attempted to co-opt the headship of this mission, and did everything to aggrandize themselves and their organizations at the expense of the movement, and the Bundy family! Both the OKs and the ASM should be ashamed for attempting to subvert the authority of the man, hand-picked by the Bundys, to be their specific representative! This was very wrong! Neither of those organizations were given the authority to be in charge of things at the Ranch, and they both attempted to usurp that authority; the ASM directly, and the OKs by proxy! Again, Shame On You!

    And, I am not even going to go into the financial improprieties on the part of the OKs. Sorry, but the truth hurts, and although this will not make make many OKs happy, and might cause some members to leave once the entire truth comes out; I believe that this many be a necessary house-cleaning in order to save the organization! I think you guys perform a vital function, but please, please don’t try to be militia until you change your leadership and get trained! Yeah, sounds bad, but militia is NOT the US Military, and there is a whole different thing that goes on with it, but they ran rings around the OKs vets on-site, with a very few exceptions.

    Sorry, Tough Beans, LEARN FROM IT! This way you won’t put people in a position to get people killed next time!

  9. John Taylor says:

    “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.”

    Or perhaps the guy who discovered the truth about the law enforcement mentality and left in disgust? There might be a few of those around.

    • Kerry says:

      I am an OK chapter leader and a RETIRED LEO. 32 years in police and Federal Law Enforcement. So EX does not apply to me. I also received the DHS VALOR award, the highest award they give. It was for life saving. I am Navy Vet. Throwing all LEO’s into one bunch is like saying all militiamen are crazy. I know that is not true because my uncle (a combat vet) is the commander of a State militia in the south. We reach out to Law Enforcement, and you cannot believe how many are not on the side of the government. You have to be inside though to see this, because they are not going to tell a militia person who says death to law enforcement. I was appalled at the conduct of the BLM Rangers at the Bundy ranch. I also saw some things only a trained eye sees. These guys were not prepared for people. Wrong training. They reacted much like the police riots in the 60’s in Watts etc. Scared and confused. Should they be punished- yes. Should the managers be fired all the way to the top- Hell Yes. OK is about helping the citizens, fighting as a last resort. Just because an organization does not go about things the way you think they should, does not make them an enemy nor cowards. I think an AG launching a drone attack is normally far fetched, but this is Holder, not your normal law abiding citizen. I was trained, if you are getting hit- disburse. Leave a rear guard. We need to stand together not fight about small things. Now that threats from some militia to OK members have been posted on video, the government could easily move in for “the safety of all involved”. Why would anyone put that on video??? and then release it. Our country has enough problems, lets stand together instead of throwing out threats and innuendos.

  10. cav medic says:

    What’s with all this pointless arguing about
    the legality of “law-enforcement” officers?
    Keep it simple.
    ANYONE who dares put their hands
    on you, to brutalize you, to bully you, to force you,
    to have you bend knee, ANYONE, you fuck them up.
    As is our God given birthright.

  11. rich says:

    To Kerry and other active/retired LEO

    All the protestations of service related “valor” and public service and patriotism really come down to one thing: when was the last time YOU went against the “Blue Line” to confront and/or denounce and/or beat the crap out of via a joint locker room “blanket party” any of the myriad bullies and abusers in your department? Never, right? When have you ever gone to Internal Affairs or even anonymously submitted evidence against the bad apples? Never, right? Yes, there is a certain variation of courage which can rush into a burning building to rescue children, etc, or plunge into the middle of a gunfight where the bad guys momentarily outnumber the cops . . but REAL courage is where you have the GENUINE fortitude and patriotism etc to risk being an outcast or pariah by doing right AGAINST the system that puts food on the table and keeps the wifey happy. All the yammering about how there are still plenty of “good” cops is BS unless one is ALWAYS actively ready to expose/denounce/remove even ONE bad apple in the barrel. That, or QUIT and find a job that doesn’t require a real backbone, where no egregious crimes against free citizens are a daily part of “duty” and “silence” and not crossing the Blue Line. Fact is, the Oath Keepers (along with nearly ANY organized institution these days) most certainly IS compromised with legions of pretenders, gov’t spies, potential agitators/instigators of violence, etc. I would fully expect one of these people to be on the fringes in a confrontation with “authority” and during a tense standoff, to be the FIRST to fire (from cover of course and to run away immediately afterward) whereupon the “authorities” will of course feel free to gleefully unloose a full barrage of deadly force and be “justified” in the controlled press afterward. I for one would NEVER allow an Oath Keeper anywhere near a tense situation, since it would likewise be hard enough to monitor/control even the Militia members, with agent provocateurs among them as well. (Just not in the same likely numbers or ratio as within the cowardly Oath Keepers, loyal to their Blue Lines of silence.)

    • Kerry says:

      I did it several times, even worked within an organization for 2 years to expose the worst kind of officer (child lover). After things go to the next level, an officer has no control. If I could have gotten there fast enough, I would have been on the front line. I have risked my life many times and have the scars to prove it, real and psychological. Have you risked your life for others? Run into burning buildings, faced down people with guns, fought to keep a woman safe or is it easier to bitch about men who do their job while you are sitting at home? Many cops are busted, it just doesent make the news because it is not sensational. FCI Maxwell in Alabama is full of ex cops. Sensation now days is saying bad things not doing them. I am sorry you are so angry, and I hope you find some peace and realize in our country all is not lost. There are many oathkeepers who might disagree with your coward stance. Many are purple heart winners..

      • Gary Hunt says:

        I find the following quote from you comment somewhat presumptuous and indicative of the them or us mentality:
        “Have you risked your life for others? Run into burning buildings, faced down people with guns, fought to keep a woman safe or is it easier to bitch about men who do their job while you are sitting at home?”
        I believe that your electricity, food, car, gun, nearly every one of those comforts that you enjoy come because someone else made a choice to participate in the production thereof. Yet, you still look down on them as if the world would not work absent your superior authority. Read Roger Root’s and understand that the world worked quite well without “cops”. You may also want to read an interview I did, back in the nineties, which is even more of concern, as has been demonstrated way too many times, with the current tactic of heavily armed, para-military, service of warrants.

      • rich says:


        To answer your second query first, yes I certainly have put my life on the line for others, not just during my military service but most especially in years following, in ways and times and circumstances I need not justify except between God and my conscience, but you get the point. Moreover, I’ve gone “against the flow” or easy path repeatedly, not just occasionally over a two year period . . after which by the way you should either have quit (loudly and publicly) OR resumed the fight on a higher level. Perhaps you have . . but you sure didn’t claim so. Undoubtedly you are among the best of the best in cop beats these days . . but it just isn’t enough, we’re in a war, and guess who will be manning the checkpoints and putting people on the buses and trains? YOU and your buddies. Maybe you’ll “quit” by then, maybe not, but based on the fact that you didn’t publicly and loudly quit when the system failed from within suggests that if not you, then MOST of your men in blue will find ways to justify their future roles so long as it feeds their families and themselves. How do you think every murderous regime in history had no trouble filling their ranks with killer guards, torturers, kangaroo court officials and LYING cops willing to perjure themselves “as necessary”? Gee, almost sounds like TODAY in most police departments and courts, yes? Just think how it will be tomorrow! As for your closing comment, let’s just say that human nature (not to mention all of human history) suggests that if a public official with a gun cannot/will not clean up their own act (how many DUI checkpoints have YOU manned without a whimper) well before society is pushed into collapse per plan, these same cops and IRS agents and Forest Service and other FED lackeys will perform just as in the past, i.e. in their own self interest rather than quitting or going fully public as YOU could have done but didn’t.

  12. SteveInSD says:

    Opfor must be having a great time with all of this. With very little effort on their part, they are apparently making a lot of headway splitting up potential allies. This admin, along with other recent ones, has been very worried about the potential effect of returning vets, even to the point of wanting to create a separate force equal to the military. Based on what I’ve read here, they don’t have much to worry about. Too bad. I wonder who the real infiltrators are?

    • rich says:

      To SteveInSD

      When in the midst of war, and about to enter a HUGE escalation therein, only a cretin Colonel or General would omit a careful and realistic appraisal of just who or what the enemy might consist of and what his own tactics must account for in response. Not just the military but now our “own” so-called “civilian” forces (such as cops, IRS, Forest Service, Social Security Administration, and even now the Post Office – plus many others) are being armed with millions upon millions of rounds of ammunition. Just what the hell do you think that’s all about? And would not any reasonably intelligent enemy controlling such forces likewise maintain a small, super-tested and super-loyal cadre of informers/agitators within those ranks? And, following the dictum, “the best way to control the opposition is to control it ourselves” would it not make sense to allow for the near CERTAINTY that going into battle with a hodge-podge of relatively unknown/untested/unvetted individuals would almost certainly include elements from those now-disloyal internal US agencies, and thus result in betrayal and possible decimation of those under one’s command UNLESS all such factors were carefully and wisely considered and countered, as best as possible? It isn’t stupid submission to a supposed “divide-and-conquer” stratagem too simply face the facts that NEED to be well understood before committing troops into a possibly deadly confrontation with the enemy. What is YOUR answer? To merely bleat “gosh can’t we all just get along” and NOT account for vital details that could and WOULD get your troops killed? As for splitting up potential allies, who is to say that those “allies” were deliberately presented BY THE ENEMY afore-hand, like a Trojan Horse, hoping and cleverly maneuvering to see to it that they would indeed be taken in, the better to stick a knife in the back at the most opportune moment. Duh, study history, study even today’s Mossad whose motto is “By Way Of Deception Thou Shalt Do War.” Bitch about this reality all you want, but whining doesn’t help, now does it? So again, what do you propose IN PLACE OF wisely publishing suspicious behavior (i.e. cut-and-run, etc) and other pertinent details and considerations that any GOOD commander would welcome as vital intel? Being aware of what’s really going on behind the scenes is NOT divide-and-conquer in action as you imply, but part of caring for one’s troops enough to plan accordingly.

  13. rich says:

    Sorry for the misquote above, Lenin’s actual words were “the best way to control the opposition is to LEAD it ourselves.”

  14. Confused says:

    Holy smokes – what the hell did I miss?!?!?!?

    I’ve read the back and forth, have seen the videos posted by both sides, etc… , but I’m still not sure why there is a problem.

    I may be wrong, but to me the Oath Keepers target people for membership who would stand down in the face of violating the Constitution (passive). Whereas the Militias seem to have an almost opposite “role” (active) – but all want to the reach the same goal.

    Why can’t two sides try to reach a common goal using opposite means – wouldn’t that be potentially very effective?

    For example, how great would it have been for LE members during Katrina to have been Oath Keepers and NOT have taken guns from people trying to protect themselves.

    Also, how great would it have been for some of the BLM Officers who arrived at the Bundy Ranch to have been members of the Oath Keepers and have said to their peers, “hey guys, WTF are we doing to this family?” before it went the direction it went?

    Frankly, the who has the bigger wienie game is playing into the .gov’s goal perfectly, and the more it goes on the more it helps them show how unorganized any movement really can be.

    What is wrong with the Oath Keepers maintaining a goal of passive resistance by the very uniformed men and women who would be actually ordered to act in violation of the Constitution, while the Militia keep its role as the ultimate active force to combat those that would (and do) ultimately follow those orders?

    Don’t those different roles actually compliment each other almost perfectly?

    [to me they do]

    • Gary Hunt says:

      You have the picture, now, let’ put a question to it. Why were the Oath Keepers at Bunkerville, encamped with the militia, in the first place, unless, as they have professed, they were there to protect the Bundys? why did they go there, if not to protect the Bundys? Why did they not stand to protect they had said they had come to protect?

  15. Confused says:

    Why, if they camp there to help “protect” the Bundy’s also, do they have to do it in the exact same way as the Militia?

    Can’t both the Militia and the Oath Keepers be on the same sight, and help with the same mission, but perform different roles (even if there is a little “crossover”)?

    If even one of those BLM guys end up joining Oath Keepers (which I know several LEOs who intend on joining Oath Keepers after that little incident), and they help to avoid a similar situation, wouldn’t the Oath Keeper’s presence be worth it and appreciated?

    Again, the dispute is being watched by the .gov and is playing perfectly for them.

    • Gary Hunt says:

      At the top right of the white portion of this window (to the right of the Title) you will see that the next article id Oath Keepers vs. Militia – Part II , then you can ask yourself why they left, if your supposition here is correct.

  16. Confused says:

    I read Part II and the comments after.

    All I can say is that what “Curtis” posted on 04/30/14 @ 6:23 pm is 1,000% correct.

  17. Prepper says:

    The “oath keepers” bailed on April 26th under ‘False Flag’ of drone strike of their own making. They left with the 10k in donations intended for the patriot troops on the ground. I have friends there, and they were left with no support or money. “oath keepers” had promised to reimburse for travel expenses to Bundy Ranch. That did not happen. I donated several hundred $ to for the patriots. I have since had to wire $750 to my friends on the ground. Stewart Rhodes is a thief, liar, and a crook. He fled to Sin City partying with OUR money. There are photos of him with hookers. I may be able to present at some time. I also have access to a recording that I may share when approval confirmed.

  18. […] over two years ago, I wrote two articles, Oathkeepers vs. Militia and Oath Keepers vs. Militia – Part II. Those articles were associated with the events that […]

Leave a Reply