PDA

View Full Version : Stewart Rhodes, founder of Oathkeepers, was right about federal gov't attacking Bundy Ranch




Deborah K
06-03-2014, 02:59 PM
During the Bundy Ranch saga, in April and May of 2014, a dispute erupted between Stewart Rhodes, founder of the Oathkeepers, and various militia regarding a warning that Rhodes had received from intel that the federal government was planning to attack the ranch and the protestors. Rhodes strongly suggested that this intel be taken seriously and he implemented plans to do so, which included informing everyone, and encouraging women and children who were part of the protest to leave the area. A feud broke out, and sides were chosen among those at the ranch, and in the freedom movement.

It turns out – Rhodes was correct.




On June 2, 2014, Fox and Friends show host, Steve Doocy, interviewed Bill Gertz regarding a secret 2010 Pentagon memo which is now being revealed.
The show starts off with a clip from May 23, 2013 of Obama stating the following:


“…I don’t believe it would be Constitutional for the government to target and kill any U.S. citizen with a drone, or with a shotgun without due process. Nor should any President deploy armed drones over U.S. soil…..”


Doocy then goes on to say: Okay, well a troubling new report is now revealing a secret memo from 2010 outlining the administrations potential use of military force against Americans in the United States of America. Joining us now is the man who broke the story Bill Gertz, he is the National Security columnist for the Washington Times, good morning Bill. Who told you about this?

Gertz: A defense source brought this to my attention, and was fairly concerned about it and said this appears to be the latest step in the administration’s decision to, at some point, use force against American citizens in the future.

Doocy: Did they give any instances when that would be appropriate because that is currently forbidden we thought.

Gertz: Right, the posse commitatus act prevents the military from being used in law enforcement but this memo was outlined in December, signed in December of 2010, and it outlines the conditions when military forces could be used to quell civil unrest and that …. I guess to say that there is growing concern among many Americans about the consolidation of power would be an understatement.

They go on to discuss how every department is becoming militarized, for example, the ag department has its own SWAT team, as well as highlighting certain phrases in the memo regarding the “Defense Support of Civil Authorities” directive no. 3025.18
Federal action, including the use of federal military forces, is authorized when necessary
to protect the federal property or functions.

Gertz then makes this comment:

"I was told by a U.S. official that there was consideration in using military force under this directive in the recent standoff in Nevada with rancher Cliven Bundy, who was in dispute with the Bureau of Land Management over grazing, but apparently cooler heads prevailed and they decided not to call out the military in that case."


Doocy: You mean they were considering taking him out with a drone?

Gertz: No, I think they were going to use military forces to somehow deal with the protests that had risen up over that.

Doocy: Well I’m glad someone talked them out of that, that would have been crazy.

I have asked Fox News and The Washington Free Beacon to post a clip of the interview and am hoping that one is forthcoming.
In the meantime, it should be known that Stewart Rhode’s sources regarding the federal government were indeed credible. He was correct in his assessment that the federal government was intending to violate posse commitatus and attack Bundy and the protestors. Hopefully, this new information will vindicate him and his, up to now, impeccable reputation.

I'm adding this vid at the point the intel was known.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HkSAewoESg&list=PL8AjrJfdw7793FdCjKqqm_cJq5S4v72-0

jllundqu
06-03-2014, 03:03 PM
There's a big difference between 'bringing in the military to deal with protests' and 'they are going to drone bomb the protesters and cover it up'

Not that I'm OK with the military being involved in ANY friggin way, but lets be real here.

Just sayin o_0

Deborah K
06-03-2014, 03:06 PM
There's a big difference between 'bringing in the military to deal with protests' and 'they are going to drone bomb the protesters and cover it up'

Not that I'm OK with the military being involved in ANY friggin way, but lets be real here.

Just sayin o_0

That's sort of beside the point of the OP, but even so, who's to say for sure WHAT their plans were? That was Gertz's opinion, not necessarily fact. The possibility of droning them might not be something his contact was willing to divulge. Fact is, Rhodes was right all along. It very well could have ended up as another Waco scenario.

CPUd
06-03-2014, 03:07 PM
If his source was right, wouldn't the ranch have been attacked by drones?

Anti Federalist
06-03-2014, 03:09 PM
Good for Stewart.

I would guess his source is probably the same source that Gertz is quoting.

What manner or shape of military intervention was left unsaid, but it's always safe to assume the worst when dealing with the FedCoats.

"We" had better get our shit together in the future.

Anti Federalist
06-03-2014, 03:10 PM
If his source was right, wouldn't the ranch have been attacked by drones?

They were CONSIDERING military action.

From everything that I recall about that nasty little dustup after the fact, that was all that was being said.

Deborah K
06-03-2014, 03:11 PM
If his source was right, wouldn't the ranch have been attacked by drones?

That was conjecture on Gertz's part. He's a columnist, I wouldn't be surprised if his source didn't want to divulge that info, or if Gertz even asked point blank.

Deborah K
06-03-2014, 03:12 PM
Good for Stewart.

I would guess his source is probably the same source that Gertz is quoting.

What manner or shape of military intervention was left unsaid, but it's always safe to assume the worst when dealing with the FedCoats.

"We" had better get our shit together in the future.

Yes. "We" had.

Anti Federalist
06-03-2014, 03:16 PM
Yes. "We" had.

That whole pile of nonsense after the fact was truly an exercise in snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Deborah K
06-03-2014, 03:18 PM
That whole pile of nonsense after the fact was truly an exercise in snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Yeah, I lost a little faith in the militia after that.

pcosmar
06-03-2014, 04:04 PM
That memo concerning Military for use domestically specifically forbids the use of Armed Drones (though not unarmed drones).

It has been posted elsewhere here.

Deborah K
06-03-2014, 04:10 PM
That memo concerning Military for use domestically specifically forbids the use of Armed Drones (though not unarmed drones).

It has been posted elsewhere here.

Gertz claims to have broke that story.

At any rate, Rhodes is vindicated.

libertyjam
06-03-2014, 04:21 PM
http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/be-afraid-new-homeland-security-chief-okd-drone-strikes-on-americans/

Be Afraid: New Homeland Security Chief OK’d Drone Strikes on Americans (http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/be-afraid-new-homeland-security-chief-okd-drone-strikes-on-americans/)
Daniel McAdams
If the ubiquitous voice of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano in the metro (or Walmart, etc) demanding that you say something if you see something wasn’t frightening enough, if TSA’s cancer rays and gropings were not outrageous enough, if Homeland Security military vehicles on US soil were not disgusting enough, Obama has a real treat in store for you.

His pick to lead the currently headless DHS is called Jeh Johnson. He was, according to the Washington Post, the Pentagon’s top lawyer. In that capacity he and a team of Pentagon experts concluded that the president did indeed have the right to use drones to kill American citizens without charge or trial. Thanks to Johnson’s determination, at least three American citizens have been killed without trial by their government.

Now he will be in charge of the “homeland.”

donnay
06-03-2014, 05:16 PM
Gertz claims to have broke that story.

At any rate, Rhodes is vindicated.

I never for a second doubted Rhodes. Nevertheless, I am glad this came out.

Brian4Liberty
06-03-2014, 06:24 PM
I have asked Fox News and The Washington Free Beacon to post a clip of the interview and am hoping that one is forthcoming.

Why Washington Free Beacon?

Deborah K
06-03-2014, 06:56 PM
Why Washington Free Beacon?

Because they've put several Bill Gertz interviews on their You Tube Channel.

Brian4Liberty
06-03-2014, 07:06 PM
Washington Free Beacon (http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/washington_free_beacon) is one of the newer neoconservative (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?450257-Neoconservatives-The-List) outlets. Seems they are trying to build some street cred.


The Washington Free Beacon describes itself as "a nonprofit online newspaper." Published by the Center for American Freedom (CAF), a right-wing advocacy group chaired by media pundit and political strategist Michael Goldfarb (http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/goldfarb_michael), the Beacon has close ties to the neoconservative flagship journal the Weekly Standard. The Standard's contributing editor Matthew Continetti serves as the Beacon's editor and chief, while Standard editor Bill Kristol sits on CAF's board. - See more at: http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/washington_free_beacon

Deborah K
06-03-2014, 07:08 PM
Washington Free Beacon (http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/washington_free_beacon) is one of the newer neoconservative (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?450257-Neoconservatives-The-List) outlets. Seems they are trying to build some street cred.

I don't really care. I just want a clip of that interview. And when I researched Bill Gertz, I discovered that the Beacon has posted several interviews of him on their tube channel.

Occam's Banana
06-03-2014, 07:14 PM
[...] Matthew Continetti serves as the Beacon's editor and chief [...]

One can only hope that Continetti is a better "editor and chief" than whoever has the job at IPS Right Web ...

VegasPatriot
06-03-2014, 07:57 PM
Gertz claims to have broke that story.

At any rate, Rhodes is vindicated.

Indeed, he is vindicated (I notice some have ignored this point). Too bad for all the dirt flinging; sad to say - that will never change.

squarepusher
06-03-2014, 08:37 PM
This isn't vindication or proof, just another person saying they "heard" something.

JK/SEA
06-03-2014, 08:46 PM
one question. Did Rhodes leave because he was afraid of a military strike on their heads...or did he leave because he was just pissed?...if he left out of fear, it seems to me most of us going into something like the Bundy Ranch would expect some kind of attack from the Government...but thats just me...

Brian4Liberty
06-03-2014, 08:55 PM
Indeed, he is vindicated (I notice some have ignored this point). Too bad for all the dirt flinging; sad to say - that will never change.

I hadn't heard about the dirt flinging, but it is all too common.

HOLLYWOOD
06-03-2014, 09:01 PM
Why Washington Free Beacon?


Because they've put several Bill Gertz interviews on their You Tube Channel.


Washington Free Beacon (http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/washington_free_beacon) is one of the newer neoconservative (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?450257-Neoconservatives-The-List) outlets. Seems they are trying to build some street cred.

A word of warning...

Be very aware and careful The Washington Free Beacon is a covert Washington Lobbying Firm for Israel and Military Industrial Complex.

Deborah K
06-03-2014, 10:08 PM
This isn't vindication or proof, just another person saying they "heard" something.

Gertz is a little more than "just another person". He's the National Security columnist for the Washington Times. And Fox is a major news station that gets a lot of coverage. I'd say it's pretty weighty. Rhodes claimed to have intel that the fedgov was going to attack. Gertz confirmed it yesterday. I doubt he even knows Rhodes. That means you have two people, unrelated to each other, saying the same thing.

Deborah K
06-03-2014, 10:09 PM
A word of warning...

Be very aware and careful The Washington Free Beacon is a covert Washington Lobbying Firm for Israel and Military Industrial Complex.

I don't care about the Beacon. I only care that they have posted several Gertz interviews in the past. I've asked them to post this interview.

Deborah K
06-03-2014, 10:11 PM
one question. Did Rhodes leave because he was afraid of a military strike on their heads...or did he leave because he was just pissed?...if he left out of fear, it seems to me most of us going into something like the Bundy Ranch would expect some kind of attack from the Government...but thats just me...

Vegas Patriot would probably know better than I, but my guess is, it was both. And the self-proclaimed head of the militia threatened Rhodes as well.

nobody's_hero
06-03-2014, 10:58 PM
In some ways, I felt like the militia's extended presence at Bundy Ranch was sort of over-doing it. After a while, it became easier for folks to claim that the militia was 'itching for a fight', which I don't think was the case, even on the day of the stand-off. They were there that day, if needed, and it turns out they were needed (because only an equal force was able to push the BLM back), but staying there at the ranch when Bundy himself didn't feel like they were needed anymore was probably stretching the public-sentiment of support they gained during the cattle reclamation.

Of course, the militia did more than just 'dig in' during the following weeks. They helped account for missing cattle, which saved the Bundy family a lot of riding through the desert counting corpses. So there's more to the militia than just holding a rifle.

On the other hand, I imagine they felt safer knowing they were all together. I still worry that once they all return to their separate lives that the arrests (or worse) will start.

Tod
06-04-2014, 04:04 AM
Does anyone here believe that the administration would not use drones because their use would be "wrong", as opposed to just being at most a less-than-the best approach to achieving total control? Please raise your hand if you think any sort of moral sense would restrain them.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I didn't think so.

oldietech
06-04-2014, 05:24 AM
all semantics. seriously, does it matter if FORCE is technically brought by one of the armed service branches of the DoD or another branch of the federal government?

sure it MIGHT have been alarming to see the official "ARMY" roll up into the desert. but what IS most definitely alarming is the blurring of the traditional lines between armed forces and police in the United States.

And of course the debate on whether or not the "military" was to be used to resolve the conflict is nothing more than a facade for what is really taking place withing the Federal Bureaucracy. All branches are becoming militarized, and this push is wedging it's way all the way down to the local levels.

It's not just that these agencies are arming up with warfare type equipment. It's also the policies, training, rules of engagement, philosophy, mindset, source of authority, brotherhood, social perceptions, and culture that are being dictated and passed down from on high.

The military junta of the United States has reached the 4 corners of the earth, and outer space, and is now naturally folding in on itself, unchecked. All the while, we sit here and debate and act like there is some difference between the "official" recognition of who/what is considered military action.

The end result is the same. Thugs with overwhelming fire power stepping in to enforce a political misadventure and agenda that is opposite the will of the people and serve only the interest of the dictators for whom these thugs operate.

tod evans
06-04-2014, 05:57 AM
Drones..........Burnt babies........Murdered homeless...........


Ho-hum who's on dancing with the starz?

Is my free food card reloaded yet?

Pericles
06-04-2014, 11:08 AM
Yeah, I lost a little faith in the militia after that.

Some militia guys really do fit the stereotype, that is why the smear is effective. The militias need better leaders than those who have as primary skill the ability to elbow everyone else out of the way to assume "command".

Pericles
06-04-2014, 11:12 AM
Vegas Patriot would probably know better than I, but my guess is, it was both. And the self-proclaimed head of the militia threatened Rhodes as well.

It was an attempt to reposition in order to be where the anticipated strike was not. Given the lack of cohesive effort there (various cliques struggling against each other for supremacy), any action gets spun negatively by the other cliques.

JK/SEA
06-04-2014, 01:16 PM
hmmmm...well, either way, it was a good practice run. Hope the 'kinks' get worked out, but running from an event like Bundy's still has me puzzled. Why go if you think you might get droned...makes no sense...

Deborah K
06-04-2014, 01:43 PM
hmmmm...well, either way, it was a good practice run. Hope the 'kinks' get worked out, but running from an event like Bundy's still has me puzzled. Why go if you think you might get droned...makes no sense...

The intel came during the protest, right after the confrontation. I think it would be pretty stupid to hang around knowing the military was about to pull a Waco.

JK/SEA
06-04-2014, 01:53 PM
The intel came during the protest, right after the confrontation. I think it would be pretty stupid to hang around knowing the military was about to pull a Waco.

i'm not a vet, but if an event like this getting the attention it got with regards to militia, i would expect BIG government push back. Are you telling me the militia and Oathkeepers didn't have a concern with being lit up from the get go?....hard to believe....Just good tactical sense...but what do i know. Just glad it went as well as it did.

Deborah K
06-04-2014, 02:30 PM
i'm not a vet, but if an event like this getting the attention it got with regards to militia, i would expect BIG government push back. Are you telling me the militia and Oathkeepers didn't have a concern with being lit up from the get go?....hard to believe....Just good tactical sense...but what do i know. Just glad it went as well as it did.

I can't speak for any of them, so this is just speculation, but I'm sure it was on their minds the whole time. They knew what they were risking. But, the fact that it got media attention probably gave some assurance that the fedgov wouldn't light the place up - given that the militia, etc. was ready to go to battle - and the public was watching.

But, once the intel came in, the game changed, and so strategy had to change too.

Deborah K
06-04-2014, 02:48 PM
No video of the interview yet, but this article by Gertz confirms what is in the OP:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/28/inside-the-ring-directive-outlines-obamas-policy-t/?page=all#pagebreak


U.S. official said the Obama administration considered but rejected deploying military force under the directive during the recent standoff with Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and his armed supporters.

Mr. Bundy is engaged in a legal battle with the federal Bureau of Land Management over unpaid grazing fees. Along with a group of protesters, Mr. Bundy in April confronted federal and local authorities in a standoff that ended when the authorities backed down.

Pericles
06-04-2014, 05:29 PM
i'm not a vet, but if an event like this getting the attention it got with regards to militia, i would expect BIG government push back. Are you telling me the militia and Oathkeepers didn't have a concern with being lit up from the get go?....hard to believe....Just good tactical sense...but what do i know. Just glad it went as well as it did.

The OK plan was to shift positions. The untrained like to sit on the top of a hill because it is easy to see all around, but that is not where the trained soldier sets up shop, because it is an obvious target location. If you can see them from the hilltop, they can see you on the hilltop.

Deborah K
06-04-2014, 06:06 PM
The OK plan was to shift positions. The untrained like to sit on the top of a hill because it is easy to see all around, but that is not where the trained soldier sets up shop, because it is an obvious target location. If you can see them from the hilltop, they can see you on the hilltop.

Dood, I cordially invite you to move where we're going to be when we get off the grid. :D

klamath
06-04-2014, 06:37 PM
Dood, I cordially invite you to move where we're going to be when we get off the grid. :DTrying to get one of the finer combat arms field officers near ya:D Not a bad plan.
People with experience recognize in very short order the difference between wantabe soldiers and real leaders. The first thing you notice is the real leaders are not posting all over how great they are and how much butt they are going to kick and how a platoon can take out a division.

Deborah K
06-04-2014, 06:42 PM
Trying to get one of the finer combat arms field officers near ya:D Not a bad plan.
People with experience recognize in very short order the difference between wantabe soldiers and real leaders. The first thing you notice is the real leaders are not posting all over how great they are and how much butt they are going to kick and how a platoon can take out a division.

True dat, brutha.

Deborah K
06-04-2014, 07:29 PM
Stewart Rhodes has agreed to pay us a visit tonight, hopefully. He is obligated elsewhere first, but has told me he might stop in and respond to the article and take questions.

phill4paul
06-04-2014, 07:38 PM
Stewart Rhodes has agreed to pay us a visit tonight, hopefully. He is obligated elsewhere first, but has told me he might stop in and respond to the article and take questions.

Let us know when you know, Deb.

Pericles
06-04-2014, 08:05 PM
Stewart Rhodes has agreed to pay us a visit tonight, hopefully. He is obligated elsewhere first, but has told me he might stop in and respond to the article and take questions.

that will be time well spent

Pericles
06-04-2014, 08:07 PM
Trying to get one of the finer combat arms field officers near ya:D Not a bad plan.
People with experience recognize in very short order the difference between wantabe soldiers and real leaders. The first thing you notice is the real leaders are not posting all over how great they are and how much butt they are going to kick and how a platoon can take out a division.

I'll be where a large number of people will not be, as I'll bet you will be as well.

Deborah K
06-04-2014, 10:27 PM
Never heard back from him, so I expect he'll swing by tomorrow, or maybe just give me his response to this good news of his vindication. I know he's pleased about it. Busy man is busy.

Night folks.

Deborah K
06-05-2014, 06:43 AM
Got an email from Stewart this morning. His meeting lasted until 11:00 pm last night. Said he'll be able to come on RPFs tonight after 8pm, mountain standard time.

Deborah K
06-05-2014, 07:08 PM
Stewart just let me know it will be around 9:30 pm mountain time for those who would like to have a discussion with him.

Deborah K
06-05-2014, 09:25 PM
http://i44.tinypic.com/2mrdw2h.jpg

kcchiefs6465
06-05-2014, 09:29 PM
Are the questions supposed to be generally related to the BLM/federal overreach or will any question suffice?

Deborah K
06-05-2014, 09:31 PM
Are the questions supposed to be generally related to the BLM/federal overreach or will any question suffice?

Ask whatever you'd like. As long as you're respectful, I don't think there'd be a problem. Hope he makes it tonight. I'm tarred. :p

Deborah K
06-05-2014, 09:34 PM
Btw, I meant that in general, not specifically.

kcchiefs6465
06-05-2014, 09:45 PM
Okay.

My first question would be with regards to the BLM and their control of much of the West.

264,000,000 acres are under their control (across the country) yet it seems that not many are even aware that states are not sovereign with regards to land within their territory. What is your opinion of the Tenth Amendment Center and other like groups who are working towards a common resolve that people understand that within this federalist system as was designed to be, the federal government is unneeded in things such as land management, highway maintenance, etc.? And what is your opinion on states who use nullification to combat the overreach of illegal, warrantless spying apparatuses and to deny the use of their resources to maintain these massive bureaucratic failures? (one that comes to mind specifically is Bluffdale, Utah)

My second question would be: On what level of genuineness do you find the average American person to be in their outrage over the state of affairs of Veteran's hospitals? It seems that every decade or so a new scandal unravels yet it appears not much is done with positive regard. With all due respect, are they the forgotten of American imperialist ambition? That is to say, those who are outraged are often the first to send the next wave of children overseas with a rifle to fight for what they think is humanitarian or for a maintenance of global hegemony. Is the double standard ever noted, in your opinion?

ETA: Oh, and thanks for joining us.

kcchiefs6465
06-05-2014, 10:01 PM
What is your opinion on the recent case in Georgia where a baby was disfigured in the execution of an early morning drug raid?

Would you consider that to be outside of Constitutional legitimacy? Or for that matter, the same to the arresting of those for vices which have no victims?

Is there a vetting process to become an Oathkeeper? Must one prove their profession as a peace officer rather than a police officer?

They are quite frankly shooting people down (or otherwise blatantly murdering them) daily. I find myself frustrated in the lack of the peace officer's objection. We are told tales of bad apples versus good apples but forgive me if I'm frank: I have not heard a one denounce that permanent injury and probable blinding of a baby. I just recently visited the Habersham Sheriff's website. They have a banner that they are for the children. Not one mention of this case. Do you consider the problem, as I do, to be systemic? Why or why not?

oldietech
06-05-2014, 10:12 PM
i want to know everything he knows about water, water rights, water as a resource, control of water and distribution of water in regards to the Federal Government, State Government, Local Government, Private Government, and Individual Government.

Please ask him to consider this request and speak generally to his thoughts about water and government. Thanks

Stewart Rhodes
06-05-2014, 10:28 PM
Okay.

My first question would be with regards to the BLM and their control of much of the West.

264,000,000 acres are under their control (across the country) yet it seems that not many are even aware that states are not sovereign with regards to land within their territory. What is your opinion of the Tenth Amendment Center and other like groups who are working towards a common resolve that people understand that within this federalist system as was designed to be, the federal government is unneeded in things such as land management, highway maintenance, etc.? And what is your opinion on states who use nullification to combat the overreach of illegal, warrantless spying apparatuses and to deny the use of their resources to maintain these massive bureaucratic failures? (one that comes to mind specifically is Bluffdale, Utah)





On the first question, on western lands, I think this answers that:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lg57Arz8vXk

Bottom line, the western lands claimed by the federal government were stolen from the western states and people. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 spells out the only way the Federal government can ever own land in the states, saying that Congress has the power to:

Published on Apr 30, 2014

"
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings..." ~ Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution


When did the state of Nevada consent to sell the federal government any land "for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings"? When did the Federal government ever pay for it? Never. They made it a "condition" of statehood, which is itself unconstitutional, and unconscionable. It violates the constitutional principle that new states enter the union on an equal footing with the other states. Looking at a map of "federal" land, you can see that out west, over half the land in each state is claimed by the feds, but that is not the case back east. You don't see that in CT, VA, PA, OH, etc. That shows you how absurd and illegitimate it was from the start, out west.

So, no, I don't think the federal government owns any of that land, regardless of what some lawyer in a black dress says from the bench, and I think the proper solution is indeed nullification. The whole Bundy stand, all that was being done there, is nullification, and it really is the answer, as Jefferson and Madison told us long ago, in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. And that is why I have spoken in support of nullification at numerous Tenth Amendment Center events. You bet it is the answer.

And what is needed now is a rising up of the entire West, to nullify by reclaiming their land, and using their land. One stand up like this is like a slave uprising on one plantation. If just one plantation rises up, they can be crushed, but if all rise up, there is no way the "slave owners" can stop it. This is where we are at. The single best way to protect the Bundy family now is for there to be a thousand "Bundy Ranches" all across the West. But, it is best done by the locals, as a community, united together, and standing together. And I think we have a lot of work to do in our local communities to build that kind of unity so it is not just one or two families standing up, but whole towns, counties, and states. The more it is a whole community, the better.

Look at the events in Michoacan Mexico.

https://www.google.com/search?q=michoacan+vigilantes&client=firefox-a&hs=7aS&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=zj-RU6W5KITwoAT58oLYDQ&ved=0CCcQsAQ&biw=1406&bih=733

The people were being lorded over and terrorized by drug cartels, and if any one person, or one family stood up to them, they were killed. But, when the people finally united and stood up together, they kicked the drug cartel's ass. Before they rose up together, 100 cartel goons enslaved a town of ten thousand. But after just 300 of the local men stood up, they realized they vastly outnumbered the cartel and that was the tipping point. Then THOUSANDS more joined the "Community Police" units, and they hunted the cartel members down like feral dogs. The cartel ran and hid, with anyone caught with cartel tattoos being killed. And they were led by a doctor, who finally had enough when he saw young girls being taken from families who could not afford to pay "protection" money, and forced into prostitution. When they came for their children, the people finally realized they had nothing to lose and they rose up, together.

Turns out Hillary was right, it does take a village ... to kill the cartel or to kill the secret police.

Whether it is private bad guys like a drug cartel, or public bad guys, like the BLM/DHS and their hired mercenary thugs, us good guys will ALWAYS outnumber them, but that only helps us if we stand up together. The bad guys count on you not organizing in your local community. They want you to be afraid to publicly organize and form community defense groups, so they can have an artificial superiority of force over you when they come for you one at a time. We saw that all through history. The secret police NEVER outnumber the people and can only tyrannize them when they hide in their homes, in fear, and hope the knock does not come to their door.

That was the lesson Solzhenitsyn was trying to tell us:


“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”

A SWAT team, a "snatch team," a goon squad of any kind, can only be effective against isolated individuals and families. They CANNOT beat a united community. Just can't do it. The people of Michoacan, to their eternal honor, have showed us the way. And now the Bundy family just gave us a good precedent for the same on this side of the border.

BUT, it should not take volunteers from across the country to get it done. It should have been handled by the locals, standing together. So, we have lots of work to do in our own communities. Which is precisely why I started the Oath Keepers CPT program (Community Preparedness Teams) to help get our communities organized.

Stewart

Deborah K
06-05-2014, 10:30 PM
Welcome, Stewart. Thank you for stopping by. While we didn't doubt your intel, we were happy you were vindicated.

William Tell
06-05-2014, 10:36 PM
Thanks for coming, Stewart.

Deborah K
06-05-2014, 10:42 PM
Stewart, would you mind posting some of what you wrote in the email to me? I know there are questions in this thread that I had trouble answering accurately. Maybe you could clear that up if you have the time?

kcchiefs6465
06-05-2014, 10:46 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lg57Arz8vXk

Deborah K
06-05-2014, 10:50 PM
Stewart, I should cordially introduce you to the RPF membership. Bryan, our fearless administrator/owner of the site is a huge fan of the Oathkeepers and sees the OK as one of the best hopes for our cause. There are many members of your group who are also members of this forum. We are a feisty bunch here, but truly do respect your work.

I met Stewart in '12 when he graciously agreed to speak at P.A.U.L Festival. Here is his speech.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrLqdODIENc

Stewart Rhodes
06-05-2014, 11:00 PM
What is your opinion on the recent case in Georgia where a baby was disfigured in the execution of an early morning drug raid?

Would you consider that to be outside of Constitutional legitimacy? Or for that matter, the same to the arresting of those for vices which have no victims?

Is there a vetting process to become an Oathkeeper? Must one prove their profession as a peace officer rather than a police officer?

They are quite frankly shooting people down (or otherwise blatantly murdering them) daily. I find myself frustrated in the lack of the peace officer's objection. We are told tales of bad apples versus good apples but forgive me if I'm frank: I have not heard a one denounce that permanent injury and probable blinding of a baby. I just recently visited the Habersham Sheriff's website. They have a banner that they are for the children. Not one mention of this case. Do you consider the problem, as I do, to be systemic? Why or why not?

Yes, it is systematic. You can blame the drug war for the militarization of the police, and for the destruction of the Fourth Amendment. The original justification for SWAT teams was for hostage situations, where it was necessary to enter a home to try to prevent a hostage being killed. I see no legitimacy whatsoever for SWAT being used to serve warrants. Which is precisely why we protested the SWAT raid that killed Marine Veteran Jose Guerena, in Tuscon a couple years ago.

Such raids do not respect the principle of a man's home being his castle, they do not respect the Fourth Amendment (you sure are not "secure" in your home or person when you can be subjected to a Delta Force style raid at any moment, with armed men in body armor kicking in your door, shooting your dogs, and sticking M4s in your family's faces. That is life in a police state. Nor does it respect the Second Amendment. If you dare try to protect your family against these unknown gunmen, like Guerenna did, you will be gunned down on site. If you don't, and it turns out to have been the cartel, then you and your family will be murdered, and possibly raped and tortured first. So, damned if you do, damned if you don't.

That's why we protested the Tucson Guerena SWAT raid and we oppose all such raids on principle. Knock on the door like decent human beings, and treat the people inside like decent human beings, who are presumed innocent until proven guilty. If they are a serious security risk, then pull them over on the way home from the store or from work and do the search of their home while they sit on the side of the road. That is what they COULD have done with Guerena. He worked grave shift at a mine. He got off work at 7am. They could easily have stopped him on the way home, or even just popped into the mine right before his shift ended, and have the manager call him up to the manager's office, and then tell him to sit down and chill while they searched his house.

Frankly, if he had REALLY been a cartel member, and a real bad guy, he could have easily set his home up to kill that whole SWAT team. At the time, we had a retired Special Forces Major on our Board of Directors, the late Maj. Rex H. McTyeire (may he rest in peace) and in a speech right after the protest, Rex stated that a REAL bad guy would have set up an M60 machine-gun on a tripod in the garage, at pelvis level, all dialed in with a T&E Mechanism (Transversing and Elevating mechanism) so that when the wanna be Delta SWAT team got all stacked up in the front entry, and in front of the tin garage door, he could have just raked a long burst THROUGH THE GARAGE WALL and garage door and wiped them all out before they even knew what hit them. That is what a real bad guy would do. And he pointed out that this is precisely why the real Delta guys don't go in through the fatal funnels and predictable entry points of doorways. They go in through a wall. He was in SF from Vietnam through the 90s and he saw the first SWAT teams come in to Ft. Bragg to get training from Delta, and he knew it was not going to end well.

His point was that these SWAT teams think they are so high speed, like Delta, but most of them really aren't "all that" and they would get their asses handed to them by any real bad guy with decent infantry training who actually prepared his ground in advance, with just a machine gun, let alone Claymore mines. So, riding right up to the drive way, rock music blasting (a longer version of the video shows them doing that) to get all pumped up, jumping out and then stacking in front of a thin door, and thin walls WITH NO COVER whatsoever, all in a nice little line up, balls to ass, waiting to toothpaste tube through the front door, only really works on people who are NOT real bad guys. Against real hardened cartel guys? It's a joke.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XP0f00_JMak

Watch that video and image them doing that to a real bad guy who set an ambush as the good Major said could be done.

So, such "tactics" really only work against soft targets, like average Joes and Janes in their underwear, who have not hardened their home and have not laid a trap.

Stewart

Stewart Rhodes
06-05-2014, 11:12 PM
Stewart, would you mind posting some of what you wrote in the email to me? I know there are questions in this thread that I had trouble answering accurately. Maybe you could clear that up if you have the time?

Sure. Here is what I emailed to Deborah:

We chose to leave [on Tuesday, April 29], once it became clear the gaggle of wanna-be warlords would not even cooperate with us so we could give them timely reports on what we saw while out on patrol (and we ran steady patrols on the highways starting Friday night, all the way to the next Tuesday), and after one of our FLIR handheld infrared units was stolen out of our truck. And our local volunteers from Vegas who were going to take over the scout patrols for us also became so offended by the libelous video of the gaggle voting that we were deserters and traitors that the Vegas Oath Keepers no longer wanted to run patrols on the highways. That video was released on Monday, but our Vegas guys didn't see it till Tuesday, and that is when they told us they didn't want to run patrols for such people.

Fact was, we had Oath Keepers still on the ground before, during, and after that whole debacle. We officially pulled out because the security team would not cooperate with us, so we didn't see the point in sticking around. But they never 'forced" us to do anything. They just ran their mouths. The only time they used force was in assaulting an old combat vet Marine [and another senior citizen Oath Keeper in his 60s] on the night of the drone strike tip.

I think it is accurate to say that sides were taken, and we were falsely accused of running away, but we countered that we had in fact already agreed that Oath Keepers would deploy out as scouts, and that is what we did all weekend and up to Tuesday. You can link to our video rebuttal for that.

[we had already coordinated with Jerry DeLemus, camp commander, on Oath Keepers going out as scouts on the highways, earlier that day, long before the drone tip came in. And that is precisely what we did that night, and every night from then on, till Tuesday. And he knew we were out on patrol because both I, and my VP David Helms, talked to him on the phone at around 1am Saturday morning, on April 26 (same night/early morning after drone strike tip) while we were on patrol, and he also knew our Marine combat veteran Steve Homan was out on patrol because Steve drove into the camp late Sunday night?Monday morning to talk to Jerry (and that is when the hand-held FLIR infrared scope was stolen out of the truck Steve was driving). And yet, later that same morning, Monday April 28th, he libeled us when he joined in that "vote" to falsely accuse us of deserting our posts].

On my being vindicated: Yes, I think I now am. This confirms that the Obama admin really was considering a military strike. And in answer to those saying "but the document forbid armed drones being used" I think they misunderstand what the DOD Directive does. It is from the Secretary of Defense, not the President, and it grants discretionary authority to low level commanders to use force to assist nearly any public official, for nearly anything, except that it states that domestic use of unarmed drones must be approved by the Secretary of Defense (making it clear they can use them, but have to get his signature) and it states that armed drones are not authorized by that document. But that doesn't mean the President cannot OK the use of armed drones, nor does it mean the Secretary of Defense cannot authorize their use independent of this document. It just says that they are not authorized by this Directive, period. You can bet that Obama still reserves his "right" and power to use armed drones anywhere on the planet, including here at home.

So, my hunch is that they were considering an array of possible options in a military strike, and that one among several options was an armed drone strike (useful for them because it removes the risk of harm to pilots, aircraft, and soldiers from the .50 caliber rifles that were present among the Bundy volunteers). Just a guess, but probably also among those options, ranking downward in perceived heavy-handedness, was probably a strike by C-130 gunship, or by Apache helicopters, or by Little Bird helicopters with mini-guns (like were used in Somalia during the "Blackhawk Down" incident), and then down to snipers firing out of helicopters, with a blocking force inserted on the ground between the volunteer camp and the Bundy ranch to keep the volunteers from being able to come to their aid while a snatch team assaulted the actual Bundy residence (either inserted by ground vehicle or by helicopter) .

That last option could have been done easily since the volunteer camp was nearly a mile away from the Bundy home, and all they really would have had to do was put a couple of trucks across the road just above the volunteer camp so the volunteers would have had to run across the desert to assist the family, and by the time they got there, it would have been over (and that doesn't even require a blocking force to stop them. Just let them try to run a mile, in the dark, all loaded down with rifles and gear, across the desert. That would have taken at least ten minutes for the very fittest among them, in a full out run, with no consideration to being tactical).

I think they had all those options on the table, and for each, a legal analysis as well as a tactical and strategic analysis. And for the drone option, I think they did indeed get an opinion or memo from the DOJ, just like the DOJ issued memos on torture or the use of the laws of war against Americans, by John Yoo and Jay Bybee during the Bush years. And those memos were then put into practice by the DOD.

In this case, they got the go ahead to do it, legally, and were all set to do it, but then someone high up decided against it, or against any overwhelming use of military force., And they likely did not have the confidence to try to do it in a more conventional "law enforcement" SWAT type raid because of the presence of well armed volunteers at the actual ranch. They could have done it, but it would have been messy, and such a move would itself likely sparked a reaction nearly as bad as a more overt military strike, given the known presence of Bundy children and women.

Again, just my educated guesses. I think they decided to wait it out till things die down, and then if they are going to arrest Cliven Bundy for anything, they can just catch him on the way to or from church, or on the way to or from the grocery or local feed store, or whatever.

And we knew from the beginning that is what sane people would do, but we cannot rely on this government to be sane. Look at Waco. And that is precisely why we were there - to be a buffer between the Bundy family and the Feds to prevent another Waco.

I will be doing an analysis of the defense of the Bundy ranch, and it will go into more detail.

Thanks again, and I am glad things turned out OK for you after Paul Fest.

Stewart

Stewart Rhodes
06-05-2014, 11:14 PM
Thanks for coming, Stewart.

No sweat. Sorry it's so late. Likely past most folks' bedtime.

Stewart

Stewart Rhodes
06-05-2014, 11:14 PM
Thanks for coming, Stewart.

No sweat. Sorry it's so late. Likely past most folks' bedtime.

Stewart

Deborah K
06-05-2014, 11:18 PM
I really do appreciate this, Stewart. Thanks again. You're a stand-up guy.

deb

Origanalist
06-05-2014, 11:24 PM
Thanks for showing up Stewart. I really do wish it was earlier, as I'm about to call it a night. Been way too busy lately. I hope this thread goes on for a while, and I really hope you continue to check in here.

fr33
06-05-2014, 11:24 PM
Can we expect more proactive exercises from Oath Keepers in the future at similar events?

Like for example the the potential BLM land-grab that might happen in Texas? http://www.rfdtv.com/story/25206377/oklahoma-texas-border-dispute-has-ranchers-worried

Anti Federalist
06-05-2014, 11:34 PM
Damn, missed it.

Glad you stopped by, you helped out a family member on personal level a couple years back, and I have not forgotten and I continue to support OK financially.

Keep up the good work.

William Tell
06-05-2014, 11:39 PM
Stewart, I am submitting this question from a friend:

"Hi Stewart, I would like to know how to select a lawyer for defending against false resisting arrest charges. A trustworthy lawyer who won't sell his client down the river."

Stewart Rhodes
06-05-2014, 11:54 PM
One of the best ways to start to clearly understand what happened on the night of Friday, April 25, when we got the phone tip of a possible drone strike, is to listen to this interview I did with John Jacob of Radio Free Redoubt:

http://radiofreeredoubt.podbean.com/e/stewart-rhodes-interview-drone-strike-intelligence/

I gave that interview at shortly after 8pm that night, on the 25th. I think the whole thing is worth listening to, but on the topic of what we thought was the best course of action, I said this:


“the point of putting this out is to prevent it from happening,. And of course we’re taking a risk of credibility by doing this, but given the threat to life, we felt, frankly, honor bound to let people know – to let the folks out there know, so they could make a choice of whether to stay on that ranch or not. Our advice to them is to get off the “X”, even the guys pulling guard, they can still pull guard, but they don’t have to be sitting in a big clump, in the middle of a clearing. They can go out to the perimeter, they can go on patrol, etc. That’s what I think they should do.”

And as I said above, we had already arranged to have Oath Keepers deploy out as mobile scouts on the highways around the ranch, and both north and south on interstate 15. We arranged that earlier that day, long before the drone strike tip came in. And one of the reasons we had arranged that is that we saw that those running the camp were not taking security seriously, and were not putting into place effective, basic measures that any competent infantry commander would do. We had strongly recommended that they dig in, and we had a veteran who had been a Marine infantry platoon SGT who offered to help them dig in correctly, with overhead cover. That was rejected.

That same Marine vet and I had gone out and bought all the materials to make mylar lined, camouflaged individual shelters that would conceal the men from infrared observation from the air. As an aside, we set guys to building those covers, but when I returned from going back to Montana to get more volunteers and more supplies, I found that only half of the FLIR shelters had been built. I found that out after the initial call on the drone strike tip, and I imediately tasked four Oath Keepers from Montana with the job of finishing those infrared blocking shelters, and when I left the camp to go pick up Sheriff Denny Peyman at the airport, I told Ben Stoble, one of the guys from Montana who was acting as Jerry's executive officer "anyone who is going to stay here [in the main camp area] needs to be dug in deep, in a spider hole, with a mylar cover over them."

To my knowledge, that advice was not followed. They did not dig in as a unit. Some individuals may have dug holes, but not like a serious, coordinated defensive position, that was properly moved off where they had been, and placed in a way so they were dispersed enough, but still mutually supporting.

A few days before, that same Marine veteran Platoon SGT also tried to get them to move the volunteer camp closer to the actual Bundy ranch, so they could actually fulfill their role of being a buffer between the Bundy family and any attackers. But that was also ignored, and so, as I said above to Deborah, the volunteer camp remained about a mile away from the actual Bundy residence, where they could have been easily blocked and contained and therefore ineffective at actually protecting the family.

And we had concerns about how the Bundy family was no longer really running things on their own ranch, and were letting out of state people pretty much just do as they saw fit, while Oath Keepers was being cut out of the leadership meetings, despite having three Board members present. That happened while I was gone.

So, days before, we had already decided that it was best for us to separate out as a separate unit, and perform the needed function of running patrols. And I spoke directly with Jerry DeLemus about that on the afternoon of the 25th, and he agreed to us doing that.

Stewart

JK/SEA
06-06-2014, 07:33 AM
new day bump.

i live in the PNW...missed Stewart last night. Thanks for appearing on RPF Stewart. Don't be a stranger.

Stewart Rhodes
06-06-2014, 09:09 AM
new day bump.

i live in the PNW...missed Stewart last night. Thanks for appearing on RPF Stewart. Don't be a stranger.

I'll still take questions. Have to travel into town today to take my sister to a doctor's appointment this afternoon, but I can chat a bit before that, and then tonight when I get back home.

Stewart

tod evans
06-06-2014, 09:17 AM
Hi Stewart.

I have a question regarding Oathkeepers in general...

Given the disparity between a layman's reading of our constitution and the Supreme Courts, can you say with any certainty that your organization is going to back one faction or the other?

MelissaCato
06-06-2014, 09:25 AM
Thank you for all you do and God Bless all OathKeepers.

Stewart Rhodes
06-06-2014, 09:53 AM
Can we expect more proactive exercises from Oath Keepers in the future at similar events?

Like for example the the potential BLM land-grab that might happen in Texas? http://www.rfdtv.com/story/25206377/oklahoma-texas-border-dispute-has-ranchers-worried

Our Texas chapter is scheduled to attend an open carry rally in that area, and their chapter president recently attended a symposium on that issue. So, I think the answer there is yes, but I will leave that particular case up to the Texas chapter. As I said above, in general we support nullification of unconstitutional actions by the Feds, and especially where they violate the Bill of Rights, and due process in general. Both were happening at Bundy Ranch, and if that is any indication, we will see more of such heavy-handedness.

However, I think the best counter is not for Oath Keepers or other national groups to try to be the nation's "constitutional fire department" for the whole country, running around to each "fire" that pops up, but instead to organize and train volunteer "constitutional fire" departments in each community. By that I mean we need to build neighborhood watches, posses (behind a constitutional Sheriff) and town and county militia (a REAL militia made up of all able-bodied people in that town or county, not just a few. A good place to start would be to get the local VFW members off the bar-stool and organized, but in the long run if you can get it sanctioned by the town or county government, that would put you in the strongest position, as with a posse. But even if the local politicians won't officially sanction it, you still MUST organize as a community for defense. It is necessary). Again, look at Michoacan. It takes a whole community to do it right. In Michoacan, they called it "Community Police" but was obviously really the community militia.

And that is the real point of our CPT program. It is not for Oath Keepers to become THE emergency response and security element for each community. The real job is for Oath Keepers to form training cadre who then go out and train and organize the rest of the community. That is why we use the Special Forces A Team as a model for our CPTs, because, while SF teams can be operational units, their real power comes from their ability to act as trainers and "community organizers." That is where they are a very serious force multiplier. We are doing the same, in communities all over the nation.

And whether you do it through our CPT program, or through something else entirely you create, who cares, so long as you get it done. Organize your own local community.

Down at Bunkerville, during the Bundy standoff, we saw that communications (or the lack thereof) was one of the most glaring deficiencies. And one of the first things I did when we got involved was buy 20 FRS/MURS short range hand-held radios and give them out, and then over 20 hand-held Boefeng dual band, hand-held HAM radios, because almost nobody had any radios of any kind among the volunteers. Plenty of guns and ammo, but no commo.

And then Justin Giles, one of our Alaska leaders, flew in with a Two Meter radio and antenna (the antenna was a folding unit all neatly tucked away in a big duffle bag he checked in as luggage). Until he arrived and set that tall Two meter antenna and radio up, the volunteer camp could not even talk to the security team at the Bundy house directly over the radio because there was a hill in between them. They had to have a guy sit on the hill top and relay messages. Justin's radio and antenna took care of that, and that unit became THE comms unit for the entire camp. And it stayed there even after Justin returned to Alaska, with the promise from camp leadership that he would get it back, and even when the rest of us in Oath Keepers leadership left, we let them keep his radio and antenna there, because without it, THEY HAD NO COMMS able to talk over that hill. And he never did get his radio and antenna back.

And after Justin set up that radio and antenna, they still had no General class HAM with the gear to talk to the rest of the world, and though we could find General Class HAMs in the area, we could find NONE with the balls to actually go out there and provide that ability to talk to the world, in case the cell phones were shut off.

I had to bring my own Montana Oath Keepers communications specialist, Paul Stramer, down from NW Montana to fulfill that incredibly urgent need. He drove down with a mobile commo truck with the radios, antenna, etc to be able to talk to the whole world. He also brought down mobile units we then put in various rental cars for our on the road scout patrols to use. Paul set up his comm base in a hotel room in Mesquit, Nevada, 20 miles North of the Ranch, so that even if the ranch was raided, he could get the word out to the world. And from there, our mobile scout units had a 50 mile radius of mobile radio comms with him and each other using the mobile units that plugged into the car cigaret lighters, and using antennas with magnets you just stick on the roof. So, even if the cell towers were shut down, we could still tell the world what was happening.

It should not have taken an Oath Keeper from Alaska, and then one from Montana, to do all of that. The locals should have had it squared away in advance. And, each and every responding militia ALSO should have had that basic comms capability when they arrived, but none of them did. I call that a big, fat, FAIL.

When we started the CPT program, which calls for 12 man field teams containing two comms specialists, two medical specialists, and two engineers, and the rest being security specialists, we got some smart ass emails telling us we are reinventing the wheel, since the HAM radio network, and the emergency response community already had it handled. But where were they at Bundy ranch? Nowhere. Sure, we located some HAM radio guys, but all the technical ability and high-speed equipment is useless as a fart in a tornado if you don't have the balls to show up (there was a General Class HAM we found right there in Mesquite, but he wouldn't return our calls).

Lesson learned: Develop a communications team in each team, each unit, each neighborhood, each community response and mutual aid group, each posse, etc. You gotta have comms. As we used to say in the Army, if you ain't got comms, you ain't got shit.

And even with Justin and Paul, we still had a shortage of comms ability. Paul needed another HAM operator at the ranch who could then talk to Paul, off-ranch, to get the word out on anything happening there. In all the entire camp, he found only two other guys who were HAM radio operators with the minimum capability, and one of them was another guy we had brought from Montana! So, out of some 70 volunteers, only two radio guys other than Paul. Again, FAIL.

You can read Paul's AAR here:

http://www.paulstramer.net/2014/05/communications-at-bundy-ranch-and.html

And by the way, Oath Keepers helped him buy some of the gear he used down there, and we are helping him buy more he needs for any future events we deploy to. Thanks to our Oath Keepers National Comms leader, Rocky, I now have a powerful radio and antenna, with power system, packed in a hard case, and Paul and I can just jump on a plane and go anywhere with this mobile unit, and he can talk to the world.

But YOU need to do the same in your own community. Once again, it should NOT take some guy from Montana flying in or driving in to provide comms.

Stewart

Keith and stuff
06-06-2014, 10:25 AM
I don't hold anything against Stewart or Jerry or any of the other people trying to help. It was a dangerous place where pressure was coming from all sides. There were even likely agent provocateurs and so on. Everyone made it out alive. Lessons were learned by a lot of people.

Great work Stewart!

Deborah K
06-06-2014, 11:19 AM
And then Justin Giles, one of our Alaska leaders, flew in with a Two Meter radio and antenna (the antenna was a folding unit all neatly tucked away in a big duffle bag he checked in as luggage). Until he arrived and set that tall Two meter antenna and radio up, the volunteer camp could not even talk to the security team at the Bundy house directly over the radio because there was a hill in between them. They had to have a guy sit on the hill top and relay messages. Justin's radio and antenna took care of that, and that unit became THE comms unit for the entire camp. And it stayed there even after Justin returned to Alaska, with the promise from camp leadership that he would get it back, and even when the rest of us in Oath Keepers leadership left, we let them keep his radio and antenna there, because without it, THEY HAD NO COMMS able to talk over that hill. And he never did get his radio and antenna back.


This is just despicable.



And after Justin set up that radio and antenna, they still had no General class HAM with the gear to talk to the rest of the world, and though we could find General Class HAMs in the area, we could find NONE with the balls to actually go out there and provide that ability to talk to the world, in case the cell phones were shut off.

Lesson learned: Develop a communications team in each team, each unit, each neighborhood, each community response and mutual aid group, each posse, etc. You gotta have comms. As we used to say in the Army, if you ain't got comms, you ain't got shit.


My husband and I both have tech licenses. And, we're members of the local CERT team. I plan on showing them what you wrote here, Stewart. And, I think maybe we should get general licenses now, even though we plan on leaving Cali.

Deborah K
06-06-2014, 12:20 PM
Bump

William Tell
06-06-2014, 01:14 PM
Bump

Good idea.

Deborah K
06-06-2014, 03:02 PM
Stewart, do you know anything about all the land Harry Reid owns around the Bundy Ranch? Here's and article with parcel numbers, etc. http://beforeitsnews.com/politics/2014/05/reid-bunkerville-llc-exposed-is-this-why-bundy-ranch-was-targeted-2618310.html

NewRightLibertarian
06-08-2014, 11:02 PM
Get anti-NDAA resolution drives going in your town halls and county commissions and use those as a springboard to develop Community Preparedness teams. It could make all the difference if things escalate in your neck of the woods:

http://pandaunite.org/takeback

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2013/10/21/oath-keepers-is-going-operational-by-forming-special-civilization-preservation-teams/

Dan Shielding
08-11-2014, 11:04 AM
Thugs with overwhelming fire power stepping in to enforce a political misadventure and agenda that is opposite the will of the people and serve only the interest of the dictators for whom these thugs operate.

Amen!

One question: What is "the will of the people?" Doesn't each individual have a unique will? Hopefully there are some values most decent human beings share... love, peace, justice, reduce human suffering, don't murder, don't rape, don't steal, etc. But clearly, many of our government handlers and their beneficiaries don't agree.

JK/SEA
08-11-2014, 11:13 AM
Amen!

One question: What is "the will of the people?" Doesn't each individual have a unique will? Hopefully there are some values most decent human beings share... love, peace, justice, reduce human suffering, don't murder, don't rape, don't steal, etc. But clearly, many of our government handlers and their beneficiaries don't agree.

i would refer you to the Constitution and Bill of Rights for your answer.

Dan Shielding
08-11-2014, 08:56 PM
i would refer you to the Constitution and Bill of Rights for your answer.

Thanks for the suggestion. I've read them before. Just did a search and couldn't find the phrase "will of the people" in either document. If you're saying the will of the people is whatever elected representatives do within the confines of the constitution I'd have to disagree. I don't think a representative can know my will, even if I vote, and aren't I a member of "the people?"

Any chance someone could define "will of the people" in their own words?

I suppose it could refer to all the needs and desires of all individuals within a country. In that case it would include many contradictions.

Or it could refer to only those needs and desires that are shared by all, which like I said, amounts to virtually zero.

Or it could refer to those needs and desires that a majority share. This could include those wonderful things I mentioned like peace, justice, reduced suffering, no murder, etc. Personally I believe the will of the people, defined this way, is expressed adequately through our voluntary purchases in the free market. I'm actually a big fan of this definition.

Or the "will of the people" could anthropomorphize an entire population, treating it as if it had a single personality and a single mind. Of course that wouldn't reflect reality. But sometimes I get the feeling people have been conditioned to think this way.

As you probably know, freedom requires us to see and treat human beings as unique individuals. That's why one-size-fits-all central planning doesn't work. I fear that words and phrases like "we" "us" "Americans" "the will of the people" "them" etc. used loosely to describe large groups of people, provides a path to collectivist thinking. And I know y'all love individual freedom like I do, right?

By the way, I love this discussion. Love the Bundy's and their supporters. I find these times to be very exciting. Thanks for this outlet and resource!

JK/SEA
08-12-2014, 08:53 AM
The Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution represents the 'Will of the People' or...WE THE PEOPLE.

Dan Shielding
08-13-2014, 11:30 AM
Sorry for the digression. To get back on topic...

Thank you for introducing me to Stewart Rhodes. What an inspiration. I was familiar with Oath Keepers but not familiar with their recent efforts to prepare local communities. Came across the following web page. What an excellent strategy!

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2013/10/21/oath-keepers-is-going-operational-by-forming-special-civilization-preservation-teams/

They invite comments so you can add your own input.

I agree with him. Having a well-equipped, well-trained, well-prepared community of local support would be invaluable. In the event of a government threat, you could still send out a call for help to surrounding areas as the Bundy's and their supporters did so effectively. But this way, you'd be a lot more prepared and you would have a well-prepared team your familiar with helping you out with no need to rely on strangers some of which you may not be able to fully trust.

What do you guys think of this plan laid out by oath keepers?

Deborah K
08-14-2014, 10:40 AM
Sorry for the digression. To get back on topic...

Thank you for introducing me to Stewart Rhodes. What an inspiration. I was familiar with Oath Keepers but not familiar with their recent efforts to prepare local communities. Came across the following web page. What an excellent strategy!

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2013/10/21/oath-keepers-is-going-operational-by-forming-special-civilization-preservation-teams/

They invite comments so you can add your own input.

I agree with him. Having a well-equipped, well-trained, well-prepared community of local support would be invaluable. In the event of a government threat, you could still send out a call for help to surrounding areas as the Bundy's and their supporters did so effectively. But this way, you'd be a lot more prepared and you would have a well-prepared team your familiar with helping you out with no need to rely on strangers some of which you may not be able to fully trust.

What do you guys think of this plan laid out by oath keepers?

Welcome, Dan. I am in favor of just about everything Stewart proposes. I have a great deal of respect for him and his accomplishments.