THE BUNDY AFFAIR - OATHKEEPERS VS. MILITIA
Gary Hunt
The Bundy Affair – Oathkeepers vs. Militia
Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
April 24, 2014
Oathkeepers is a national organization founded by Elmer Stewart Rhodes in 2009. By 2011, they had a reported membership of 12,000, though no current membership figures are readily available. Their stated Purpose:
Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of current and formerly serving military, police, and first responders who pledge to fulfill the oath all military and police take to “defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” That oath, mandated by Article VI of the Constitution itself, is to the Constitution, not to the politicians, and Oath Keepers declare that they will not obey unconstitutional orders, such as orders to disarm the American people, to conduct warrantless searches, or to detain Americans as “enemy combatants” in violation of their ancient right to jury trial. See the Oath Keepers Declaration of Orders We Will Not Obey for details.
Interestingly, they say that they will not “conduct warrantless searches”, though those in law enforcement do so every day. But, then, that is not the point of discussing Oathkeepers, so, on with the story.
They declare that “THEY will not obey unconstitutional orders”. Otherwise, they did not explicitly state, since they refer to their “oaths”, that they will “defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic”, though that is not their primary purpose, only incidental. Nowhere do they make that their purpose. Only not to obey unconstitutional orders. This needs to be emphasized as this is where the rubber meets the road.
Though we have no current numbers, the membership structure consists of both Full and Associate memberships, with Full being $40 per year and Associate being $7.00. Associates are supporters that don’t meet the criteria defined in the “Purpose”.
We must ask ourselves why Oathkeepers are even on the scene. They have taken an oath not to violate their oath. That is well and good, but let’s look at how that fits into the current situation. Oathkeepers (not associate Oathkeepers) are current, ex, or retired law enforcement, etc., and military. So, we’ll look, first, at Law Enforcement.
Active Law Enforcement are currently paid by the enemy (government), just as the Redcoats were 230 years ago. If they were on our side and acted in conjunction with Constitutional Militia, they would, in essence, be fighting themselves or their brother LEOs). They may still be on the side of their brothers. However, if you look at almost any state, Law Enforcement Officers are specifically excluded from the militia — check your own state statute under the militia section. So, on to ex-LEOs. This would presume that they did not get the time in for retirement, leaving the question as to, “Why?” Sort of reminds us of the guy charged with a crime and then the charges are, mysteriously, dropped; or, the guy that has an assignment that requires that he shed his Law Enforcement identity. Finally, we come to the Retired LEO. He is receiving a very substantial paycheck. Many larger cities have salaries for these full-term officers in excess of 100 thousand dollars per year. That would prove to be a tidy sum, which, surely, the retiree would not be willing to relinquish because he participated in an event that was an action against his brothers in Law Enforcement. We must judge based upon what we can use as a benchmark to measure the probability of actual concurrence with the efforts of the militia.
With regard to LEOs, since 1967, law enforcement training has focused on a “them or us” mentality. That means that though they are sworn to enforce the law, that policy is inapplicable if the offender is a brother law enforcer, except, perhaps, in extremely egregious circumstances, likely comprising a very small fraction of a percent of all LEO offenses. Will he ever be willing to disassociate himself from an aura of superiority that had become a mainstay of his life?
On the other hand, their disdain for the public safety, as demonstrated so often by “policy” of “Officer Safety” resulting in hundreds of killings per year of innocent, unarmed citizens. If an officer is involved in such incident, he gets administrative leave, with pay, pending investigation — yes, paid vacation, not taken from his contractual vacation time — for killing someone. If by some chance the victim’s family prevails in a lawsuit, then the taxpayers pay the damages and costs. What a deal! But, I digress, though that digression is also important to the story.
In addition, perhaps we should consider the proliferation of Fusion Centers, where various federal agencies interface with local law enforcement officers. Can we reasonably expect that there is not a degree of encouragement for the locals to infiltrate, or at least, ingratiate, the various patriot groups to obtain intelligence on their operations? If so, the simple next step is to attempt to gain influence to be able to direct, or at least influence, those groups’ activities, in support of their federal comrades.
Now, let’s look at the Military side of Oathkeepers. Active military can be of no assistance, as he would not go AWOL, or risk his leave, to do something that might get him an early discharge, at less than honorable. We’ll jump to Retired, and we will recognize the same problematic relationship with the pension of one who takes on the federal government. As well as his obedience to the government controlled environment for at least twenty years of his life. Though perhaps extreme, remember, Timothy McVeigh, recipient of a number of medals and an honorable discharge, was denied the burial rights that were guaranteed as a condition of enlistment. Surely, they can yank pensions on almost any grounds that they reasonably justify.
This leaves us with those who chose not to career, and since 1973 there has been no conscription (draft), so we needn’t address those who didn’t volunteer and deal only with those who volunteered to serve their country, did their duty, served their time, and got out to reenter civilian life. They have nothing to lose by participation with the militia, and they are not excluded by statute. Therefore, they are the only possible contingent of the Oathkeeper element that can relatively safely be assumed pure in their motivation.
With that one exception, they all have a conditioning in their lives that would suggest that they would tend to be inclined to a sort of special duty — infiltration of the militia — than they would to have of the pure motives of participation in the militia.
The Oathkeepers, by their oaths, only intend to “not violate their oath”. There is not provision in their corporate bylaws that provides for them stopping another person from violating his oath. The militia, on the other hand, having both helped in wresting control from England, and current situations, have been a mainstay, and by tradition as well as intent, are bound to support and defend the Constitution and their State’s constitution.
That being said, if Oathkeepers choose to participate in the events at Bunkerville, they should do so not as an Oathkeepers, but only as a member of a militia, which the Constitution of the United States and the constitutions of each and every state, recognizes as a lawful and protected right — a right of united self-defense. They should be relegated to duties without access to privileged information or command. And, as such, are subordinate to the command within the militia structure, not to the patriarch of the Oathkeepers. Oathkeepers may, by choice, be militia. However, militia members, who have taken the same oath, absent the requisite requirement to join and pay the dues, may not be Oathkeepers. So, which of the two MUST be the subordinate?
http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=826