AP photo
St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner Kurt Hofmann speculates on potential consequences for a group of current and retired military and law enforcement personnel who believe their oath to the Constitution should have bearing on their professional conduct. In today's column, he asks "Will Pentagon try to crush Oath Keepers?"
The immediate basis for Hofmann's concern is a report following up on the Fort Hood shootings:
The Pentagon may reconsider rules governing participation in extremist organizations that some lawmakers say appear outdated and too narrow in light of the shooting rampage at the Army base in Texas.
Some have been following attempts to tar Constitutionalists as extremists for years. And some of us have repeated the warnings when we saw renewed smears. We raised concerns when we saw the infamous Department of Homeland Security report single out not just Constitutionalists for special scrutiny, but saw our government issue strident warnings such as:
The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.
And we have not stood by silently when we saw some try to publicly affiliate Oath Keepers with "white supremacists, anti-Semites, nativists...and a range of other activists of the radical right [that] are cross-pollinating and may even be coalescing."
The Pentagon is reconsidering affiliation restrictions: Current "rules prohibit membership or participation in 'organizations that espouse supremacist causes,' seek to discriminate based on race, religion or other factors or advocate force or violence. Commanders can investigate and can discipline or fire people who 'actively participate in such groups.'"
Here's what we must hammer home while the politically-minded brass are considering expanding disqualifiers--what Oath Keepers are not:
We are Not advocating or promoting violence towards any organization, group or person [and] We are Not advocating or promoting any act or acts of aggression against any organization or person for any reason including, but not limited to; race, religion, national origin, political affiliation, gender or sexual orientation.
And here's one other thing to keep in mind: What do you call a person who has been dishonorably discharged?
That's right, a "prohibited person." Subject to having their firearms confiscated.
Policy makers currently trying to connect dots had better think this one through very carefully.
------------
LEAA warns Gun Talk listeners about Holder
On Saturday, we talked about Attorney General Eric Holder's plans for more "gun control". Yesterday, Ted Deeds from Law Enforcement Alliance of America appeared on Tom Gresham's "Gun Talk Radio Show" to talk about it.
If you missed it, you can listen to the segment by clicking here, then click on "Listen" and click down through "Archived Shows" to "Sun, 22 November 2009 Guntalk, Part C., Hour Three - Guest Ted Deeds L.E.A.A."
A handful of us are doing what we can to get this story heard, and trying to generate wider awareness and interest. So far, and predictably, the mainstream "Authorized Journalists" have ignored the attorney general of the United States telling the Senate Judiciary Committee that people on a government suspicion list should not be allowed to "possess" guns. Meaning citizens on such a list, who have been convicted of no crime, would be subject to having their arms confiscated...
If that concerns you, please help us spread the word, by sharing the link to "Gun Talk Radio" and to these articles:
Attorney General Holder Reveals Aggressive Gun Control In Response to Ft. Hood Terror Attack
Holder tells Senate committee Justice Department supports more 'gun control'
Gun Owners of America's "Right Side News" Analysis
Comments
David Codrea wrote:
Policy makers currently trying to connect dots had better think this one through very carefully.
They won't though. They will do as they always do, have a knee jerk reaction to a problem that doesn't exist. Well, it does exist in their minds.
I saw this on another blog ant thought it said it all.
From MamaLiberty over at War on Guns:
"Here's an idea...If nobody wants a 'civil disturbance,' why in heck don't they quit disturbing us?"
Sounds like a plan to me.
Keep in mind that a DD requires a GCM conviction. It is not an administrative discharge.
Thanks, Robert. That's one of my favorites. :)
Seems to me that the DoD and all the rest of the alphabet gangs are doing their very best to push us into a tight corner.
Won't they be surprised when they wind up grasping a badger by the snout...
We're all done backing up. Leave us alone or you WILL feel our teeth.
III
It's happened, PJJ, to 19 neonazis in the 82nd Airborne, at least according to "A Few Bad Men" by David Holthouse.
And one article that Kurt linked to implied OK's were engaging in "conspiracy to commit sedition."
The point being, associating Oath Keepers with haters and Constitutionalists with terrorist extremists is a tack we're seeing tried. If followed to its potential (as has been advocated by some in high places), merely being on the suspicion list will be enough for "legal" disablement of RKBA.
Whether it happens now or later, Master will ultimately demand absolute fealty. Right now, caught a little off-guard by some of the more honorable within its ranks, it is laying the groundwork for legitimizing its own future purges.
For the state to come out now and ask the real question: "who do you serve?" would be too open, too honest. Master does not work that way. Rather, it will try to set people against one another, finding whatever disagreements they may have and exploiting them to its own aggrandizement. In the end, people will clamor for the forcible subjugation of their very neighbors and cheer the JBTs righteously when they open fire.
But of course, all of this is crazy talk. Everybody knows that Nazi Germany sprung forth fully-formed, with no windup; from perfectly peaceable people to eugenically genocidal nationalists in nothin' flat.
"We" don't do that kind of thing here, see...and we'll lock you up if you suggest otherwise.
David, thanks for the audio link to Ted Deeds LEAA interview. Great article.
After listening to the entire exchange, I agree 100% with Mr. Deeds, anyone out there who thinks police will not confiscate guns when ordered to do so needs to be reminded, repeatedly, of the Hurricane Katrina aftermath where police from dozens of agencies from around the country were called in to restore order and then enthusiastically act upon illegal, unconstitutional, and immoral orders from then Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco-D and New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin-D to kick in doors, invade homes, assault and arrest law abiding people without warrants just to confiscate guns, their only means of defense against roving criminal gangs.
Oath Keepers objective is most admirable, but when the rubber meets the road, there won't be any shortage of police willing to follow unjust, illegal, and unconstitutional orders. We better not kid ourselves about that fact.
I wonder how it would play out in the public eye if the DoD started releasing soldiers for belonging to an organization that does nothing but reassert that soldiers should keep the oath that the DoD itself wrote, administered, and required?
I have believe that "freedom" and "self determination" are innate human attributes. People will always seek a way to be free even in the most totalitarian of societies, no purge will change that.
I wonder how long it will be before expressing such thoughts is enough to send one to a Gulag?
Any of our warriors who have served more than once in either the Iraq or Afghanistan AoA should immediately join Oath Keepers. That way they can overcome the "freeze" (or what I call the "back end draft") on allowing "essential" MOS personnel from leaving service upon ETS.
Took my oath in 69, saw no reason not to become an Oath Keeper when I first saw what Stewart Rhodes was promoting. If the government wants to accuse me of "Conspiracy to be Honorable" I'll proudly wear that badge alongside the 218 and growing members here in Ohio and 10,529 countrywide.
Thanks David for once again portraying our organization for what it isn't as well as what it is.
Henry Bowman says:
I wonder how it would play out in the public eye if the DoD started releasing soldiers for belonging to an organization that does nothing but reassert that soldiers should keep the oath that the DoD itself wrote, administered, and required?
November 23, 2:25 PM
If the DoD is that stupid, by all means, proceed.
Remember it was said, "all you have to do to be called a radical today is to say the same things that the founders said."
Stand up for the Constitution, hold to your honor, abide by your oath and you are an extremist. You are because they do not. They spit on their oath, they have no honor, and they forgot about the Constitution long ago.
For the Republic.
What is the radio frequncy and local time for Gun Talk Radio? Does it even air in Phoenix?
Tex, I put a link in this so you can get to his site and get all the show info you need.
In 1938, the Nazis first went through the Jewish ghettos and took all the guns. Then they took all the long knives. Then they came and took the Jews. Why does Obmamama want a special powerful national police force outside of the military, NG, USAR, or state police organizations??????????? He said it himself. I sure don't make up the crap coming out of this White House.
give me liberty or give you death, that was a great line !!!
Eric Holder's radical views about gun control after Ft. Hood reveal a mind-set that is absolutely out of control and very much lacking good judgment and logic! Ft. Hood and soldiers are weapons people. They have access to guns from every source available, the public sector and the military. Having gun controls would NOT have prevented this terrorist from acting. He would have secured a weapon from the base if he could not have secured one in the public sector, which is foolish, because criminals can always get a gun. Eric Holder only wants to confiscate and stop every private citizen from having a weapon to defend themselves against tyrants and out of control organizations such as those who would overthrow our Constitutional form of government! Mr. Holder in my opinion is a dangerous person to be in the position he is now occupying!
Take a good look at that oath again. It doesn't say anything like "for the term of my service". Sounds like a long term commitment to me. Wonder why the left wants people to stop honoring it?
Can the government explain to us why the "Promise Keepers" were good but the "Oath Keepers" are bad?
A culture does mean people must agree about things without that confusing double-talk, which hinders maintaining items which are material. When enough demand for people to honor their oaths then being attacked or not honoring their oaths and being attacked, the complete breakdown of material-wealth management can occur. That situation is asking for, a Government to lack the supplies needed to function.
When that breakdown does occur, the Federal-Government will experience States which break-away to avoid personal-destruction. Any attempt to both force keeping oaths to the legitimate Government while also, attacking people which keep oath to a legitimate Government, does suggest the presence of insanity in the Federal-Government. The continued more forceful enforcement of this behavior-pattern, will continue more forcefully bringing the same-results.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!