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

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

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
April 29, 2014

In these past few weeks, we have seen history unfolding right before our very eyes. Events in Bunkerville, Nevada, have been watched on the evening news throughout the country, and quite possibly, around the world. For the first time in a century and a half, Americans stood, defiant, ready to go to the wall, against the government, or at least one of her administrative agencies, to assure that the erosion of our liberties ceases, and we begin to restore our rights to what our forefathers intended.

From a people rather complacent for most of their lives comes a new test not unlike that which the Founders faced back in 1774 — the determination of who is on our side and who is not; who is committed and who is not; who is willing to give his life for a cause that he believes in and who is not, and that what this story is about.

Recent events in Bunkerville portray that test in vivid and sensational detail. I give a chronology to these events, and they will be presented in Pacific Daylight Time, regardless of the local time where some of them occurred. This is to insure continuity, and that the sequence is properly portrayed.

At about 2:30 pm, Friday April 25, 2014, Mr. X received a call from an associate. This call would provide for some interesting disclosure over the next 6 hours. The associate is described as a fellow participant in Open Source Intelligence, a nuclear physicist, a Democrat, a higher-ranking military officer, and that held a “Yankee White” security clearance.

I spent nearly an hour going over the details with Mr. X, to whom I have promised confidentiality. I am fully satisfied as to the veracity of what he told me. Though I did ask him if it would be possible to talk with the associate, with a guarantee of anonymity, he assured me that this would not be possible, as was made clear by the associate. I then asked him if Oath Keepers had asked if they could interview his source. His answer was, no they did not. This, to me, is a rather curious omission, even though the answer would be anticipated to be as it was — so much for the intelligence gathering ability of Oath Keepers, but, hey, I’m just a reporter. What would I know?

The story related in the conversation between Mr. X and the associate is that the associate had received information from a source he knew in the Defense Department (DOD). The source at DOD said that they had received orders from Eric Holder, of the Justice Department, to conduct drone surveillance of the Bundy property and to conduct a hot drone strike on the ranch and those on or around it. This was to occur within between 24 to 48 hours, and that there were to be no witnesses nor would any videos be allowed to leave the area.

Mr. X was quite shaken by what he had heard and expressed those concerns back at the associate. Wouldn’t this be going too far in the eyes of the public? Answer: They are prepared to deal with that. There is no way that this could be covered up. Response: They are prepared for that. It was suggested that this would lead to martial law based upon authority provided for in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). He was also told that the justification for the strike was based upon Harry Reid’s assertion that Bundy and those supporting him were “Domestic Terrorists”. To each of Mr. X’s queries, similar answers were provided to justify the story being conveyed.

Mr. X was, to say the least, perplexed and did not know what to do with this information. By about 3:00 pm, he contacted Stewart Rhodes of Oath Keepers. Rhodes, upon receipt of this information wisely dispatched Wes (aka “Mac”, Oath Keepers Intelligence Officer, about 6′ tall, older gentleman, prior Special Forces operator, driving a silver pickup truck) and Michelle to meet with Mr. X. and ‘vett’ him to determine whether he was sincere and to make an evaluation of the story.

Jumping ahead to 8:03 pm, John Jacob Schmidt, Radio Free Redoubt, interviewed Rhodes and other Oath Keepers (21’18”) regarding this story. Rhodes, justifiably, pointed out that the vetting had convinced him that the source (Mr. X) was sincere, though there was no way of verifying Mr. X’s source. Rhodes said that there was a risk to his credibility by putting this out, but since there was a concern for human lives, the story must be gotten out. Rhodes also pointed out, in releasing the story, that he was not going to “let my people die on my watch” and to “err on the side of caution for my guys.” Of course, the advertisement at the end of the radio interview was an enlistment ad for Oath Keepers.

Let me return to my interview with Mr. X. We discussed potential scenarios that might occur, considering the strike and its ramifications. Presuming the government had drone surveillance, and wanted to assure maximum effect, they would have a containment team to prevent any attempt of any of people to leave the area, as they did in Waco, where only those who came out in view of the cameras came out alive. They would have to insure meeting the objective of the strike — all personnel dead and evidence destroyed. As Rhodes pointed out, they would need a follow on team, though he didn’t address containment. That follow on team could surely serve as the containment team prior, and the follow on team subsequent, to the strike. We also discussed the ramifications — the effect on the American, and world, public, should such a strike occur. We all know how even the Mainstream Media (MSM) reacted to the directed drone strikes that killed two American citizens in Yemen, even though they had sided with our ‘enemy’. What would be the consequence of a general, indiscriminate, attack on men, women, and children, on American Soil, for merely resisting the enforcement of an agency rule to “rustle” Bundy’s cattle? No shots fired, no deaths, or even injuries. Would the public stand for it, and would Congressmen, even Democrats, scramble to condemn the action? Would a hundred million Americans realize that the government had gone berserk? Would they then flock to the cause of those who would resist such tyranny? Even MSM might even turn, drastically, against the administration. Would Jay Carney have trouble attempting to justify such action?

The probability of such an action is, at least, remote, and such intelligence should be used only within the confines of the current operations at the Bundy Ranch, rather than risk ridicule, when precautions could easily be taken, without public notice of such a threat?

Returning to the time line of events, we now go back to the Ranch to see what activity occurred because of this threat. At between 5:00 and 6:00 pm, Oath Keepers at the ranch began packing up their gear. At about 8:00 pm, about the time of the radio interview, Rhodes used the internal communication system and notified the Oath Keepers that they should move out. By 8:30 pm, 30-40 Oath Keepers in the encampment had moved out, as had the Oath Keepers command circle. Only about 5 Oath Keepers remained at the ranch to protect the Bundy family and property. Where did the others go? To the Virgin River Motel, possibly at the expense of the contributions sent to Oath Keepers, contributions having been made to provide protection for the Bundys, not for luxurious comforts for those who had abandoned their posts.

Later that evening (exact time unknown) a conference call was made between State Representative Michelle Fiore, Stewart Rhodes, Pete Santilli (patriot videographer), Booda Bear (Personal Security Detail for the Bundy family), Ryan Payne, Militia Liaison, and LTC Potter (who states, “I am a former US Army LTC of 28 years. I served in various Military Police and Military Intelligence positions around the globe. I was also a municipal police officer for about 3 years. I bring my unique experience, training, education, and spiritual insights to bear in analyzing important issues and trends in the U.S. and the world.”). The result of the conversation was to request that Representative Fiore contact the Governor and request the State’s support, independent of the militia, to provide protection for those Americans on the ground at the ranch. To date, there has been no response from the Governor.

So, let’s put a bit of perspective on what can be deduced by the actions of some of the players in these events.

First, as explained in my article, Vortex, if the government wants to disrupt or bring ridicule on the patriot community, it would choose an innocent patriot who they hoped would be likely to spread the story, indiscriminately, throughout the patriot community. However, the chosen conduit, the Vortex, had enough sense to provide the information, discretely, to someone he respected, hence the message going to Oath Keepers. Oath Keepers could have contained the story and still benefitted, in every way, by preparing for that eventuality. Instead, they chose to go public with it, for reasons unknown.

The Oath Keeper mission, “to not obey unconstitutional orders”, had, by their participation at the ranch, extended to “protecting the Bundy family”. They also declare that their purpose includes “education”. Now, if their mission is to protect the Bundy Family, just how far does that go? Given the choice of fulfilling their mission, by removing the Bundys, by force, if necessary, or holding their ground against the ‘enemy”, they chose to abandon that mission, for their own protection. Being that their membership is largely Law Enforcement, it appears that they have also adopted the “Officer Safety” principle adhered to by Law Enforcement to justify killing unarmed civilians. In this instance, the outcome would have been the same, had the strike occurred. In military parlance, this would be tantamount to desertion under fire. I can only suggest that the purpose for going public with the story was to justify their withdrawal, after the beating that they have recently taken as a result of an article, The Bundy Affair – Oathkeepers vs. Militia, wherein one of their officers, in the comments section, is unable to address some of the concerns raised.

Various discussions around the Internet have also brought their true role and purpose at the Bundy Ranch into question. I won’t suggest that this event, the drone strike, may have been a setup by the Oath Keepers to bow out gracefully, as I don’t believe that they would stoop that low. However, I can only wonder why those stalwart militiamen held their ground, while the professed bearers of the torch chose to flee. Not quite like the roles played in the American Revolutionary War, where militia fled and the trained soldiers held their ground — to the last extremity.

Now, some have suggested that this controversy between militia and Oath Keepers has caused division in the patriot community. I am inclined to see this in a different light, in that, in these times, we must separate the voices from the action; Those who will stand, and those who will not; those who are true patriots, and those who only mouth those words.

Epilogue: Yesterday, the militia command structure, which is a shared command rather than top down, held a Coalition meeting to provide insight into why Oath Keepers, with the exception of those few who stood their ground like real patriots, were deemed persona non grata, by those who still stand their ground, and truly honor their oaths. Coalition Meeting of April 28 – caution, language.

Finally, a Salute to all true Americans that seek a return to the government intended by the Constitution.


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 – Oathkeepers vs. Militia

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. RandyMack says:

    Oath breakers

  2. Clay says:

    Preserve, protect and defend are actionable concepts. No two people see or action them in the same way. Perhaps the Oath Keepers see themselves in more of a command and control role. I guess only in the Marines can you be expected to be a “rifleman” first. No matter. When Holder drops the hammer, so say ye one, so say ye all. The regime will be guilty of murder and treason. That event will precipitate a whole new meaning to “Citizen’s United”.

  3. Elizabeth says:

    Clay wrote: “Perhaps the Oath Keepers see themselves in more of a command and control role.”

    Perhaps they do, but the question left hanging in the air is, “command and control” of what, precisely?

    Education perhaps, the media attention brought to bear by a “brand name” perhaps, but to those who perceived their mission as protection and defense of the family and property, this situation has provoked more questions than answers as to what Oath Keepers mission entails.

  4. If A Tree Falls in the Forrest Will the NSA Hellfire It? says:

    You boys went off the reservation with this.

    There is no such thing as a splendid little war no matter what delusions the “milita” suffers.

    Your mouths are going to get a lot of good people killed and deal a blow to the People that will make the backlash to OKC look like a slap on the wrist.

  5. Robugly says:

    I said it before, say again. I don’t trust any organization the requires paid membership to participate in upholding the constitution.
    “profiting off the movement”

  6. Kyle Rearden says:

    Wow, that video shows that the other contingents there in Bunkerville think that, at the very least, the Oathkeepers co-opted preexisting efforts, or at the very worst, the Oathkeepers are provocateurs. Geez, no wonder Adam Kokesh burned his Oathkeepers membership card last year…

    Again, for anybody who bother to read Dr. Roger Roots’ “Are Cops Constitutional?” and Gustave de Molinari’s “The Production of Security,” there is really no reason to support the existence of so-called professional police any longer. This also means there is no reason to support any organization or group who seeks to gently handhold these police employees, because the eventual result for doing so is the circus they tried to instigate at the Bundy Ranch.

  7. Alvie D. Zane says:

    Great read on part I, II of Oathkeepers vs. Militia, Gary.

    You wrote:

    “I won’t suggest that this event, the drone strike, may have been a setup by the Oath Keepers to bow out gracefully, as I don’t believe that they would stoop that low. However, I can only wonder why those stalwart militiamen held their ground, while the professed bearers of the torch chose to flee.”

    You don’t believe that the Oathkeepers would stoop so low? I say, don’t be so quick to give them the benefit of the doubt.

    Some little known background:

    On April 19, 2010, an open carry rally was planned beside the banks of the Potomac in Fort Hunt NP and Gravelly Point, NP. Gravelly Point is within sight of the Washington Monument and the Capitol Dome and is about as close as you can physically get to the Capitol Building in the state of Virginia. Restore The Constitution (RTC) was the name of the rally. Sidearms, longarms, and bandoliers all within sight of the Capitol Dome. It was a brilliant idea and I’m proud to have been a part of planning, supporting, and executing this rally.

    It was well on its way to being a stupendous win. The Second Amendment foundation was having an empty-holster rally inside DC on the same day. Their leader was going to speak at our rally. Sheriff Richard Mack was going to come to our rally. Stewart Rhodes and Oathkeepers were going to come to our rally.

    But then . . .

    The Thursday or Friday before the rally, Rhodes et al pulled their support citing “credible sources” that indicated that there would be some major badness happening. Their withdrawal took away a ton of support that we were expecting. In spite of Rhodes, it was a glorious spring day and the rally was a success. The media showed up in droves and could not stop staring at the guns. From what I could tell immediately after the rally, we stole the thunder from that empty holster crowd. One of the SAF guys said that our rally was a public relations disaster for them. Well, yes. AR-15’s vs. empty holsters, which are more interesting to look at? We looked like men while you guys looked like Robert Dole in a Viagara commercial. If you want to be the man, then you’ll have to man up. While Rhodes went across the river and played it safe with the empty holster crowd, we counted coup all the way home.

    I’ve since forgotten all the BS that flowed from Rhodes related to Oathkeepers retreat from the RTC rally. It’s been 4 years after all. But I’ve never forgotten his cowardice and I’ve never forgiven.

    When Jose Guerena was gunned down by a Pima County SWAT team, all that Rhodes and Oathkeepers could do in response was to hold a symbolic march to Guerena’s house to console his widow and make a speech. How about maybe protesting at the Sheriff Clarence Dupnik’s office or at his house? Nope. Too dangerous. If you want someone to point at the chalk outline on the ground though, Rhodes and the Oathkeepers are your guys!

    I offer this now because the Bundy Ranch is not the first time that The Oathkeepers have run when someone whispered potential badness in their ear. What is it they say, 1 time is an aberration, 2 is a coincidence, 3rd time is a trend?

    As for why militia men would hold their ground? Well, that’s what MEN do. What a pathetic joke that the Oathkeepers had their first really big gathering at the North Bridge in Lexington, Massachusetts on April 19, 2009. What an insult to the patriots who manned up and marched into danger instead of away from it. If Rhodes and the Oathkeepers had gotten word from Paul Revere himself, they would have cited “credible sources”, withdrawn from Lexington on April 19th, then held a march on April 20 to go to Lexington to mourn the dead and make speeches. If it were up to Rhodes and Oathkeepers, we’d still be paying tribute to the crown. I didn’t go to the Bundy Ranch, but to God if I had, I hope that the only way I’d leave is either of my own free will or in a pine box. In other words, like a man standing with that family instead of abandoning them to death that my intelligence told me was certain and imminent.

    As they were on April 19, 2010, Rhodes and the Oathkeepers are nothing but empty holsters. That’s the nicest thing that I can say about them.

    Thank you,

  8. Joe Taylor says:

    Sounds like Stewart Rhodes Has balls made of pure… pussy

  9. Murin Ar Panterac says:

    I have a copy of that video of the Militia meeting.
    I took it to Next News Network. Now I am of a better understanding of what has transpired after reading this article.
    Seems Blaine Cooper had his Youtube Channel removed as well after posting that video. (I managed to snag it before it went down)
    Depending on what Next News does with the story, will dictate My next move.
    I’ve put ALOT of time and effort into garnering support of the Bundy Ranch. While due to My physical handicap I was and am unable to come to their aid directly I have been pushing the issue on social media outlets.
    IF OKs did this thing, which I am inclined to believe that they did (video doesn’t lie)it is a blow to the entire movement, simply bc we won’t know whom our friends are.
    Of course, it may also be a psy-op designed just for this purpose.
    Has everyone already forgotten Operation PatCon?
    Just a thought

    • Dennis says:

      From everything I’m reading, the Militia is pissing off a golden opportunity to educate the citizens of the US as to just what the Militia is supposed to be.

      They would be miles ahead if they set up a HQ and traing to include range firing. They need to drive home the idea that cops and alphabet agencies are not the first responders to any given situation. It is the individual Millitia person on the ground at thhe scene who is the true first responder. All others are backup.

      The federal government has been trying to destroy the Militia from is first congress and hasn’t eased up since. The National Guard isn’t the true Militia but a special Militia backing up the regulara army. In other words, a second reserve that is allowed to serve a gverner upon request.

      I would love to talk too any commander of Militia and may be contacted at 972-218-9338

      Dennis Joyce
      K30, 11th ACR 1966

  10. Mitch Mitchell says:

    Hello Jim, I would like to direct this to everyone. My Credentials: Vietnam War Veteran (Apr. 1964 – Dec. 1970), Cold War Veteran (Jan. 1981 – Oct. 1989) past member of various militia groups, I was present at Ruby Ridge, and was notified to stand down at Waco.Attempted to join Committee of Safety, Arizona, Had already shut Down, member of Oath Keepers.Have been actively trying to wake people up since 1978. At Present Retired. I think it important that everyone go to Oath Keepers web site and read latest advisory dated 29 April 2014. I read your blog quite often, but this is the first time i have made any comments. I like and agree with most of you posts in your blog.I visit Outpost for freedom as well. You provide a lot of good information. May I suggest you go to Liberty and download and read Letter to Charles Sumner by Lysander Spooner [1864], Letter to Grover Cleveland, on his false Inaugural Address, the Usurpations and Crimes of Lawmakers and Judges, and the consequent Poverty, Ignorance, and Servitude of the People by Lysander Spooner [1886], Letter to Thomas Bayard: Challenging his right – and that of all the other so-called Senators and Representatives in Congress – to exercise any Legislative Power whatever over the People of the United States by Lysander Spooner [1882], No Treason. No. I by Lysander Spooner [1867], No Treason. No. II. The Constitution by Lysander Spooner [1867], No Treason. No. VI. The Constitution of No Authority by Lysander Spooner [1870] and Address of the Free Constitutionalists to the People of the United States by Lysander Spooner [1860], I think you will find these works very interesting and pertaining the what true patriots stand for. Keep up the good work. If you have need, I have a library of over 2,000 books and documents concerning liberty and freedom. Mitch

  11. Fred Johnson says:

    Absolutely incredible exchange of information. Years ago, when the oathkeepers began, I joined! It was free, and it was completely internal to LE. The sole premise was we would not break the law. This put a lot of pressure on the sociopathic gods of management. If they found out you were an oathkeeper, your career was flatlined. But only the folks far enough along in their careers to not be screwed with joined or considered joining. This really stirred some fear in federal management. There never was any offensive acts outside of DEA threatening to arrest ATF in New Orleans to get ATF to quit stealing weapons from law abiding citizens. Then, half of DEA retired and the others were forced back into the chains. That being said, there is a huge divide between refusing to break the law, and upholding constitutional law. The “militia” are special people who are in a position to offensively enforce the constitution. They should be ghosts for self defense. They should be dispersed to the four winds to take action on their terms. They should not argue as time tells the truth and yacking was not in sun tzu’s book. Their cloak of invisibility is their best weapon.

  12. Ruth says:

    I think I will hold my judgement til I hear both sides of the story .I want to hear the “oathkeepers ” side too, maybe the truth lies somewhere in the middle . No matter what I think it was in bad form to have different people sending out posts airing dirty laundry out . It could have all been handled more professionally at the least . I hope ego’s aren’t getting the best of everyone . God Bless all at Bundy ranch .

    • Gary Hunt says:

      You suggest that it is bad form to air our dirty laundry. So, you think that it is best that we, who oppose the tyranny of the government, should bury our heads in the sand? Gee, that would mean that the government could walk all over us (assuming that we are all on the same side, for the same reason), and we couldn’t “air our laundry” so that others would no where to be cautious?
      I think that a fair discussion is in order. And, in support of that concept — let’s get to the bottom of this — ‘their rebuttal is here:
      Please take note of the paragraph where they analogize this situation as a bomb threat in a school. Compare that analogy with what really happened at Bunkerville on April 25th.

      • Elizabeth says:

        Two things:

        1. OKs removed their “children” and left all others sitting there. Bad form for “defenders.”

        2. OKs are going with the new policy and intimating that all “dissenters” are suffering from a type of
        mental illness. Way to choose sides there, OKs.

        Why would such tactics be countenanced by any thinking person?

        This is ugly, it is uncomfortable to ponder, but ponder I do.

        I wonder why need go to all the trouble of inserting informants, disinfo agents, or other agents on its behalf when it can just allow the OK leadership to do it for them.

        Truly…a deadly state of affairs for good and well intentioned patriots everywhere.

        Airing dirty laundry?

        This post from OK site is a textbook example:

        Wash, Rinse, Spin, Repeat, Until Stains Are Removed.

        Even I expected better, not having a problem in the world with OKs mission as I understand it…to educate, and to build a powerful advocacy political action committee…and not to defend Americans. That being so, it appears OK presence at Bundy was to bring a national “microphone” to bear, on behalf of the issues as OKs see those issues.

        I feel sorry for the Bundy’s.

      • Jester says:

        The militia leader who chaired the coalition meeting implied that the OK leadership made a unilateral decision to pull up stakes with little or maybe no notice whatsoever of their threat assessment and action plan to the Ranch command structure for discussion and deliberation. This reveals one of two possibilities.

        1. The leadership command coalition was not thorough in discussing and recognizing the explicit adoption of a procedure by all leaders which mandated a meeting and discussion of emerging intel or other urgent circumstances BEFORE individual commanders moved their personnel in ways that would effect the entire program.

        2. Such a procedure was explicitly agreed upon and expected. And after the Oathkeepers deliberated amongst themselves and came to their conclusion of the nature of the threat they received internally, and how they would react as a unit, their leadership disregarded the procedure they had agreed to and made a unilateral decision letting the others know on their way out the door while taking with them some physical assets that were in communal use prior to that time.

        Even without such an explicit agreement. Considering it probable that Oathkeepers personnel were depended upon for scheduled duties, and that some of the equipment they brought to bear based on receiving donations was in communal use, I find it hard to believe their leadership would not approach the command coalition and at least attempt to inform them of their decision and square things with them as best as possible before leaving. The fact that they “began packing up their gear between 5-6pm, and did not get the command to move out until 8:30, tells me that is right around dinner time when it couldn’t possibly be missed. So no one talked about what was going on? Was their camp so far removed from the rest of the defenders that no one noticed? And if they decided to leave 5 behind to guard the ranch, was that another act that went completely unnoticed and disregarded? Did they literally abandon the camp covertly without saying a word?

        Even if the Oathkeepers made only brief notice to the others as to why they were packing up and heading to a motel that night, were firm in their decision, rejected further discussion on the issue, and caused some disruption in the defense operation because of the human and physical assets they were removing, the rhetoric from the command coalition spokesman was extreme. Especially considering that he gave recognition several times that some of the oathkeepers were diligent and honorable.

        In reading today’s article by Elias Alias, I did not notice any mention of taking “at least some” responsibility for the misunderstanding. This quote struck me. “Oath Keepers is not a militia and we do not take our marching orders from any militia.”

        Why has there been so much said on this issue in the form of blame of others, instead of honest self assessments and admission of mistakes and apologies to get the water under the bridge and learn from those mistakes?

      • Ruth says:

        Well Gary first of all dont start twisting my words around , I did not say to bury your heads in the sand . I never said to let the govt walk all over you .what I did say and I still say is it was foolish and unprofessional to air all the weaknesses , petty arguing who are the heroes and who are the better in a public forum and if you dont like that well go cry somewhere else about it. And I also said I would hold my judgement til I heard the Oath keepers side .I read the reply as you posted the link and I find ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG in what was said by oath keepers . I have been in pissing contests with you before on other forums so this isn’t new for you . I disagreed with you on patriots fb too. Lets get started here Gary , With all due respect for all the men and women at the bundy ranch . If you want to act like an army ( militia or others ) If you want to talk in terms of “battle ground ” at your point there wasnt one. The Army – the big green machine – eats, sleeps and shits orders. The orders that all other orders are judged by is the operations order. OPORD. The most senior officers and their staff are responsible for the base or original oporder – this will include the 5 paragraph order and all of the accompanying annexes – the annexes are organized by combat function, logistics, maneuver, Intel, and on and on – the annexes are by unit directions and coordinating instructions for each and every action that takes place on the battlefield from burning shit to fueling trucks to counting bullets.
        Most importantly the OPORD identifies who is responsible for what and who’
        ns ass will be in a sling if that part of the operation fails.

        Fragmentary Oporders or FRAGOs are modifications to the original base order, normally drafted by the staff officers of subordinate commands FRAGOs must support the original OPORD –

        The Army uses FRAGOs and OPORDS for everything from organizing the annual dining out to post deployment reset recovery activities to simulation exercises to full on at combat speed real world operations.

        The army does not issue one bullet, fuel one truck or process one pay action without a supporting order. What does that mean for you ? If you have no one in your organization that has the responsibility to face the consequences of both success and failure then you’ve already lost the fight. You failed to do the basic due diligence you accepted failure and defeat because you never planned on success – Now Gary you can disagree with me all you want but the truth of the matter is the truth . So I still stand by my statement that without orders from the command NO ONE SHOULD HAVE LET THEIR EGOS GET IN THE GOAL OF THE MOVEMENT AND THERE SHOULD BE SOME SORT OF ORDER FROM COMMAND . To get up there and take down an organization like oath keepers is and was a mistake you should have had your ” fair discussion before these big mouths broadcasters complaining about what happened and taken it up with command first .

        • Gary Hunt says:

          Our country, believe it or not, was founded upon a principle of shared commend. The only instance that I can find of Washington not agreeing wit the majority vote of the “Council of War” was Princeton.
          We have come to accept this communistic approach to both the military and government. And, though it may be correct in the military (though I don’t think it is), it is not appropriate to our government. Government is intended to govern the country (government), not rule the people.
          However, if we live with what our “world view” is, then we fail to learn from history. We accept the status quo because it has been that way,all of our lives — though often incrementalism tends to go unnoticed, so we don’t see the insidious, beeping changes that simply increase the power at the top — without notice. That, quite simply, is the boiling frog syndrome.
          So, fortunately it is the whole frog that is being boiled, as they haven’t cut our legs off, yet.
          BTW, the comment about heads in the sand was not even implied to be your words, rather, my impression of what you were trying to justify.

  13. Murin Ar Panterac says:


    The screen shot images I have from Bishop (OK Facebook Page Admin) having a conversation with My source indicate that it is being blamed on a psy-op and there are “infiltrators” in the Militia on the Ranch. Awfully easy and convenient to blame it on a psy-op don’t you think? Still I would like to see an “official” response from Rhodes on video, hence why I gave My files to Next News Network in hopes they would get both sides.
    My Anony Sense is tingling though. This has all the hallmarks of a psy-op to break up support for the Bundy Ranch.

    I haven’t forgotten Operation PatCon…

  14. THusar says:

    There is a silver lining to this.

    In the event it does get “hot,” we are able to identify and remedy issues.

    It’s very difficult to make changes when under fire.

  15. Jester says:

    The oathkeepers command give their side of the story.

  16. Murin Ar Panterac says:

    Ruth~ thanks I had just found it from a previous post.
    It is now archived for the documentary I am doing.
    If you look on the comments on that OK video you’ll see My post as 0407Anonymous

  17. Curtis says:

    Well, whatever the case may be with the militia, OK’ers and Mr. Psyops (Black shirt right) there just handed FedGov a (another) brilliant psyop coup.

    Patriots, you better un-fuck yourselves, or surely, we will all be FUCKED. Because surely, FEDGOV is counting on it.

  18. Peter says:

    EXCERPT: Consider this quote from A Discourse of Voluntary Servitude by Etienne de la Boétie, written in the 16th Century:

    “The oppressor has nothing more than the power you confer upon him to destroy you. Where has he acquired enough eyes to spy upon you if you do not provide them yourselves? How can he have so many arms to beat you with if he does not borrow them from you? The feet that trample down your cities, where does he get them if they are not your own? How does he have any power over you except through you? How would he dare assail you if he had not cooperation from you?”


  19. Kelly Kafir says:

    What a crock of shit this is… Written by a wannabe “minuteman”… HAHAHAHAAHAHA

    There is no such security clearance as “Yankee White” and IF there were, it would be Yankee Whiskey not White… but no such thing… there is Confidential, Secret, Top Secret, SCI Top Secret and NATO TS… so I already question this… And he is a democrat? Another reason to doubt… and Eric Holder does NOT order the DOD to do anything. Period.

    And Ryan Payne, the so called military liaison, has been proven to be a fake – he was never an Army Ranger as he claimed…

    phhht, “abandoned their posts”…. this was NOT a military operation… the Oath Keepers are volunteers and veterans who have already been in war zones… it was prudent to fall back in the case of a possible attack… many of us have families and are NOT getting paid anymore to be in harms way… No servicemen’s group life insurance if we are killed…

    and desertion? REALLY??? We are under NO orders so there is no desertion! This sounds like the rantings of a loser who has played too much Call of Duty video games!

    Our mission was never to “protect the Bundy’s” it was to prevent another Waco or Ruby Ridge but what good is that if they had all stayed and got killed? They fell back, regrouped and started a scouting mission on the perimeter. Oath Keepers is NOT a militia and these wanna be militia idiots are usually people who couldn’t get into the military. They do not talk like veterans in my opinion and sound like civilian hot head who want to start a war… that they would lose.

    it appears that they have also adopted the “Officer Safety” principle adhered to by Law Enforcement to justify killing unarmed civilians This is just laughable! No Oath Keeper subscribes to this.

    • Gary Hunt says:

      My, what an intersting name (The Qur’an uses the word kafir to signify various negative qualities of a person). So, we have the ad hominems out of the way.
      Someone with a least bit of English comprehension would understand why “Yankee White” was in quotation marks. That is to demonstrate that it was a quote from Mr. X. Yes, the exact same source that OathKeepers had. I simply included that so that a portion of the story didn’t remain untold. But, it appears you have trouble with that. As we continue, understand that OathKeepers gave this information credence — sufficient for them to abandon their post, but we are not there, yet.
      So, next, let’s look at Ryan Payne. I posted this artcile, , in response to the OathKeepers article, “Stolen Valor”, which they published yesterday.
      But, we cannot describe it as “abandoning their post”, silicone they came out to protect the Bundy family (yes, their statement), until such time a there was a possibility of risk (OKs determination”, ad, as said in the Part II article, they worry worried about the safety of their “guys”. So, let’s go with a tactical, cowardly, reter4ate, resulting in the abandonment of their professed mission. Will that do for you? Or, is the fact that they weren’t getting paid an excuse to leave while the unpaid militia stood firm and remained at their post. Ask the OKs if they got reimbursed their gas, rooms, and meals in the Virgin River Casino.
      If I had left my post in Vietnam, whether an attack was imminent, or not, I would have gone up on charges. Those charges would have hinged on desertion, though the circumstances might mitigate the severity of the penalty.
      So, if you were at Waco, you would have fled when th4 tanks came? Give me a break. OK knew that there were no criminal charges — that the Court Order only authorized collecting “trespass cattle” om “trespass land”, or they would not have known why they were there. They being there, whoever, speak mountains. If there was going to be a drone strike, just how would they have “prevented another Waco”? By removing any possible resistance to such an action? I will admit that you could have fulfilled part of your mission — by keeping the children from playing the slots (if they had gone where you went), though that doesn’t do much good for the family. BTW, those children were not at the Casino, that stood, bravely, regardless of the perceived threat that OK conveyed to them.
      Finally, since there seems to be an air of secrecy as to who the members of OathKeepers are, I have no choice but to take your word for your last statement. I cannot disprove it. So, I will accept your unproven theory. Okay?

  20. […] front of theWorld War II Memorial during the last government shutdown by WWII veterans, as well as the Cattle Unrustling a little over a year ago in Nevada, were “nonviolently” peaceful, despite the fact they were both acts of civil […]

  21. […] The Bundy Affair – Oathkeepers v. Militia, Part II […]

  22. […] their muskets to defend the British regulars (that is, the redcoats). I regret to say that the Bundy Affair was probably the last great contribution the American patriot community has offered the cause of […]

  23. […] Luke Rudkowski, Jeffrey Phillips, Nancy Genovese, Ed Snook, George Hemminger, Ron Paul, Mark Dice, Stewart Rhodes, Christopher Blystone, and Mark Kessler. I would submit to you that these are the types of […]

  24. […] Luke Rudkowski, Jeffrey Phillips, Nancy Genovese, Ed Snook, George Hemminger, Ron Paul, Mark Dice, Stewart Rhodes, Christopher Blystone, and Mark Kessler. I would submit to you that these are the types of […]

  25. […] VI. Oathkeepers v. Militia – Part II [4/29/14] […]

  26. […] VI. Oathkeepers v. Militia – Part II [4/29/14] […]

  27. […] 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 were happening at the Bundy Ranch, in Nevada. […]

Leave a Reply