Category Archives: Oath Keeper

Hacked Messages Discuss the Plan for a Black Lives Matter “Summer of Chaos” Leading to Martial Law

https://www.oathkeepers.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/deray1-800x500_c.jpg

Is U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch coordinating with Black Lives Matter activists to disrupt the upcoming Republican and Democratic National Conventions so that martial law will be declared and the elections suspended/indefinitely postponed?  This allegation is the subject of hundreds of articles regarding a series of purported direct messages between three leading Black Lives Matter activists.

What We Do Know

On Friday, June 10, 2016, Black Lives Matter (BLM) leader and former Baltimore Mayoral Candidate DeRay McKesson claimed that someone hacked into his phone and took control of his twitter account. DeRay McKesson reported the hack to The Baltimore Sun. On June 11, 2016, a twitter user who calls himself The Saint (@TheSaintNegro) tweeted what he claims are private direct-message conversations that occurred on June 10 between DeRay McKesson and Johnetta Elzie, in which the two discussed coordination of plans to cause the declaration of martial law through disruptive protests and direct action at the upcoming Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Ohio, and the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, PA.

https://www.oathkeepers.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/msg1.png

The messages claim the endorsement and support of U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch. Their alleged goal, as stated in the messages, is to cancel the Presidential election and keep Barack Obama in office, while also giving him a justification to attempt a declaration of martial law (something nowhere authorized by the Constitution – see below).  The private direct message conversation over the course of several days between BLM activists DeRay McKesson, Johnetta Elzie, and Samuel Sinyangwe has been reported as follows:

https://www.oathkeepers.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/blm1.jpg

JOHNETTA ELZIE: “Have you spoken with Mrs. Lynch [Attorney General Loretta Lynch] recently about the plan for the summer and fall leading up to the elections.”

DERAY MCKESSON: “We spoke two weeks and they want us to start really pushing how racist Trump is now instead of waiting so the others can start getting the protesters ready to shut both conventions down.”

DERAY MCKESSON: “If we can get both conventions shut down for messing over Bernie and for having racist Trump, then get martial law declared so Obama can stay in office we will win. Call you soon when I get to my dads so I can use his landline and we can talk more on this.”

DERAY MCKESSON: “We have to make sure that we use our voices to keep people disrupting Trump all summer and through the fall so martial law can be declared….”

SAMUEL SINYANGWE: “I wanted to touch base with you about the summer of chaos. So far we have over 2,000 people bused in from different cities and another 6,000 to 8,000 expected to drive into Cleveland for the Convention.”

SAMUEL SINYANGWE: “They will not be ready for the crowds we are bringing and they will blame Trump for it, especially if we shut it down. The GOP will have to replace him at that point or we will continue the disruptions nationwide.”

DERAY MCKESSON: “I will pass the info along. Good work, Sam. You never let us down. It’s so important we stop Trump. He can not be president. He will destroy everything we worked so hard for and we can’t trust….”

DERAY MCKESSON: “…today and he [Sam?] confirmed that there will be around 10,000 protesters disrupting the [Republican] convention. Plans are being made for other cities as well for upcoming Trump events. Ads have already been placed looking for people to help. I know you don’t care for them [white people] but this is the time we need our white allies doing a lot of the work for us. They are the ones who listen the best.”

JOHNETTA ELZIE: “That will put fear into the GOP and the country when they can’t have their convention for all their racist supporting Trump. We’ve worked too hard and closely with the Obama administration to have that racist ass take it all away and Hillary…. You know I can’t stand those white allies, but yo right this is the best to use them. They hang on every word you say and will do whatever is asked. I just hate all that kiss ass they try to do. Like that changes who they are.”

DERAY MCKESSON: “We have a lot of white allies volunteering for Trump’s campaign to pass along information to us before it’s made public so we know when rallies are coming up before they are announced. That way we can plan major disruptions in those cities in advance. We just have to keep our names out of this and let these [white] people do the work for us by pushing how Trump’s racist ways will destroy….”

JOHNETTA ELZIE: “That’s all those white people are good for in my eyes. I couldn’t imagine even pretending to like that racist ass Trump even to get info on his events. I’ll be glad when we shut his ass down.”

DERAY MCKESSON: “With the support we have from Mrs. Lynch and the help we’ve got from Sam and others it won’t be hard to cause enough….”

Other Related Events

At the Aspen Ideas Festival, DeRay McKesson discussed plans for protests during the DNC and RNC, as reported by USA Today.  He also discussed reservations regarding Hillary Clinton and his total disdain for Donald Trump, whom he called “evil.”

You can watch the video of the interview here.

It is interesting to note that Attorney General Loretta Lynch and DeRay McKesson were both speakers at the 2016 Aspen Ideas Festival. There are speculative reports of the two meeting during this event. What is known is that DeRay has been in attendance at meetings with the Attorney General over the past year.

https://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/fist-pump-first-fam.gif?w=627&h=247

Closing impression: BLM (Black Lives Matters) is operating as the DC regime’s KKK.

Source: Oath Keepers | Rifleman III Journal

 

Americans Practice ‘Irish Democracy’ By Ignoring Unconstitutional Gun Laws

https://i0.wp.com/c1.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/styles/original_image_with_cropping/public/uploaded/gun-control-resistance-irish-democracy_0.jpg

“Irish Democracy,” the phenomenon by which the general members of a polity resist the mandates of their would-be rulers by simply refusing to comply with them. It is a low-cost form of civil disobedience, but one that can be very effective at times: Mohandas K. Gandhi was entirely correct in his famous declaration to the British powers that they would eventually be forced to simply pack up their tiffin pails and go home, because 300,000 Englishman could not control 300 million (at the time) Indians if those Indians didn’t cooperate.

One way of considering the radical potential of simple noncompliance is the “10 percent synchronous subversion factor,” the proposition that if 10 percent of the U.S. population refused to (for instance) pay taxes or answer jury-duty summonses, then the rules would have to change, because they would be unenforceable: There aren’t enough tax agents, constables, slots on court dockets, or jail cells to enforce the rules against 32 million Americans if they should decide to refuse to comply with a given law.

For example, the prospect of local-yokel police going door to door anywhere in California, Fallujah-style, trying to collect nonconforming firearms from people on unconstitutional alphabet .gov agency no rights lists is humorous to contemplate.  In kind, contemplating the same sort of development in Texas or Wyoming is rather less amusing, because at that point the model of resistance would stop being Irish democracy and almost certainly would mutate into something a lot more like Lexington and Concord. No decent, patriotic person wants to see that.

Nor does one relish the idea of police forces being obliged to choose between attempting to enforce an illegal and unconstitutional order and ceding the interpretation of constitutional law to mob-ocracy. Even for those of us who understand why the Second Amendment exists and who endorse the reasoning behind it, trusting in the prudence of large, armed crowds of 21st-century Americans requires an act of faith well in excess of the evidence.

The hallmark episode of Irish democracy in the American setting is Prohibition, which is a cautionary tale — and not only for the would-be modern prohibitionist. Prohibition demonstrated several things to the American public, which took the lesson to heart: Politicians are entirely capable of making stupid laws when in the grips of voguish thinking; the American people are more than capable of ignoring and subverting those laws; that subversion often is met with ruthlessness and brutality on the part of law enforcement, but enforcement is by no means even-handed; hypocrisy, like alcohol, is a useful social lubricant in moderation but debilitating in excess; social tensions reveal who has political power and who doesn’t, casting a harsh bright light on Lenin’s fundamental question — “Who? Whom?”; and law enforcement is just as corruptible as any other institution. Prohibition did a lot of damage by providing an enduring model of organized crime, but it also undermined Americans’ faith in the rule of law as such: Favoritism in enforcement, bribery, and institutional incapacity severely damaged the law’s prestige. We have never really quite recovered.

Our new prohibitionists are a lot like the old ones. The nice corduroy-clad liberals in places such as Georgetown and the Upper West Side use guns as a stand-in for the sort of people who own guns in much the same way as the old WASP prohibitionists used booze as a stand-in for the sort of people who drank too much: Irish and other Catholics, especially immigrants, and especially poor immigrants. The horror at “gun culture” is about the culture — rural, conservative, traditionalist, patriotic, self-reliant or at least aspiring to self-reliance — much more than it is about the guns. It’s the same sort of dynamic that gets people worked up about Confederate flags or poor white people with diabetes who shop at Wal-Mart. A little dose of Irish democracy is an excellent thing in response to that, especially when it is coming from California and Connecticut rather than Oklahoma and Alabama. But winning the fight on gun rights while losing the fight on the rule of law is the very definition of a Pyrrhic victory. It is necessary that we also prevail politically and legally, which we have been, thanks in no small part to the efforts of the NRA and affiliated groups, as well as the increasingly sensible view of the American public that what’s wrong with mass shooters has more to do with the mental-health system — and that what’s wrong with Chicago has something to do with that, too, inasmuch as the inmates are running that particular asylum.

The Supreme Court has been more than clear, on more than one occasion, that the Second Amendment says what it means and means what it says. We also have a long legal and constitutional tradition that prohibits stripping people of their civil rights — including their Second Amendment rights — without due process, generally in the form of an indictment and a trial and a conviction. If the Democrats want to do away with the Second Amendment, let them begin the amendment process and see how far they get. We should challenge them to do so at every opportunity. In reality, the Democrats have declared war on the First Amendment, voting in the Senate to repeal it; they have declared war on the Second Amendment at every turn; they also have declared war on due process and, in doing so, on the idea of the rule of law itself, beginning with the notion of “innocent until proven guilty.” That isn’t liberalism — it’s totalitarianism. That’s a winnable fight, and we should welcome it.

Adapted from Kevin D. Williamson’s ‘On Guns, Californians Practice ‘Irish Democracy’ and Ignore Bone-Headed Laws’ | National Review

https://westernrifleshooters.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/13606624_1205336002819171_7376915823753331912_n.jpg?w=750&h=491

Midland Texas Gun Store Offer Silencers, Automatic Weapons

S&K Helps People With NFA Process

by Rye Durzin | MRT.com

https://i2.wp.com/ww3.hdnux.com/photos/45/77/13/9958138/9/920x920.jpg

Midlanders with an itch for silencers and automatic weapons — and who need help acquiring them — can now get them at the recently opened S&K Arms store.

Located across from Grub Burger off Midland Drive, S&K Arms has been open since Christmas Eve, but finally had its grand opening on Feb. 23 after store officials got tired of people telling them that they didn’t know the new gun store was there.

“Grub Burger is probably responsible for 90 percent of our business, and, until this event, we hadn’t done any advertising, and we still had a ton of business,” said assistant manager Danny Anderson.

Customers milled about as Anderson explained how S&K offers high-end guns, suppressors, machine guns and general advice. Walls made out of wood paneling are racked with 30-odd guns of varying types.

“When we first opened we wanted this to be like a sushi place like, ‘Hey! We’re glad you’re here,’” Anderson said of S&K’s philosophy. “We wanted not only to cater to the high-end person who wants unique boutique stuff, but also the person who’s never bought a gun before. We don’t want them to feel intimidated. We just really wanted to give people the level of customer service that they expect when they walk into any other place; why should you put up with less than helpful employees?”

Founder Kane Kolisek started the company a few years ago in Crane, selling suppressors out of the back of his parent’s home health store. The new store features not only silencers, but also automatic weapons, with a .50-caliber machine gun in the center of the store and a well-kept World War I-vintage machine gun on a coffee table.

Anderson also explained that S&K offers help acquiring suppressors and automatic weapons, including how to negotiate the seemingly daunting National Firearms Act (NFA) that is the framework of regulations used by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF). He said that the staff helps clients with their paperwork, and that, while the wait time might be long (the NFA applications take the ATF four and six months to process), the duration is much shorter than the year it took the ATF to process the paperwork in early 2014.

An NFA application can be filled out by an individual, but Anderson said each person would have to provide their fingerprints, a passport photo, and a signature from a chief law enforcement officer such as Sheriff Gary Painter or Midland Police Chief Price Robinson.

Anderson suggests that if someone wants to buy a suppressor or automatic weapon that they set up a trust with a lawyer, which means that they would not have to provide the previously mentioned information. It also means that when the holder of NFA items passes away, the handover process involves less hassle.

“Every time it (the NFA item) gets transferred, you have to pay a $200 tax, which is why the trust is better because, let’s say you pass your suppressors down to your kids, they don’t get transferred to the kids, they stay in the trust and you can do whatever you want with them,” Anderson explained.

If a trust is not set up by a an owner of NFA items, things for their family can go south fast.

“When you die, you have a safe full of suppressors, and as soon as you die, those things get transferred and everybody’s committing felonies all of a sudden,” Anderson explained of what can happen to NFA items not in a trust. “On top of that, to be legal, your estate has to handle all the paperwork all over again, and a $200 tax on each individual item all over again. So it can get expensive and you can end up surrendering a lot of stuff to the federal government.”

Anderson attributed a growth in demand for suppressors to the falling wait time, which he believed meant that the ATF is getting better at processing the applications. But if you want to buy a gun, ogle some nice ones or just talk shop, S&K officials believe they have created a store for you.

Understanding The Fear Of Self-Defense And Revolution

By Brandon Smith

Our era is a strange one when considering how social attitudes have developed in such a contrary fashion to the rest of history. I think that our forefathers would look upon our current culture with bewilderment when confronted with the fact that our generation has all but abandoned the option of physical rebellion as a tool for social change. Even among the most enslaved of nations and peoples, the idea of revolution has been held in regard as an entirely moral and principled affair involving every individual, no matter their age or economic station. Today, however, that which we call “revolution” has been delegated mostly to college-age intellectuals and has been so watered down and whitewashed with politically correct restrictions that the concept is hardly recognizable.

I believe the civil rights movements in America and in India in the 20th century have in many ways warped the public view of how opposition to totalitarianism is actually accomplished. I find it interesting that movements led by Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. enjoy so much adoration in mainstream media and in public schooling, while the American Revolution is often either misrepresented or not discussed at all. Gandhi’s movement was, in concrete terms, a failure until Indians had actually began organizing to physically fight the British, causing the Crown to attempt to defuse the movement by suddenly offering up a reformation of Indian governance (one that would continue to benefit them). When one examines the facts surrounding Cointelpro operations by the FBI and CIA during the civil rights movement in America, one realizes that half the efforts and actions were legitimate and the other half entirely manipulated.

Over the course of half a century, the philosophy of “anti-violence” has come to include a distinct distaste for self-defense. Self-defense is now consistently equated to “violence” (and is, thus, immoral), regardless of environmental circumstances.

Even in the liberty movement, there are people who disregard physical defense as either barbaric or “futile” and have adopted rather less-effective pacifist ideologies of more socialist activism. The problem with certain factions of libertarianism is that they tend to live within their own heads, reveling in a world of Ayn Randian and Rothbardian political and social theory, while abandoning the other side of concrete resistance. Some in the survival community call these people “egghead libertarians,” and I think the label fits.

They rejoice only in the intellectual; thus, they tend to see themselves only as “intellectual warriors.” For them, the war against tyranny by extension must be fought on an intellectual battlefield. Otherwise, as individuals, they have little to offer the resistance. They believe that if they merely present a better and more logical philosophy, they will win over the masses to their side or even change the souls of the rather soulless psychopaths creating tyranny in the first place. Like magic, they will have won the fight without ever truly fighting. It sounds like a strategy right out of the “Art Of War,” but really it is an intricate excuse designed to avoid risk.

They have almost no experience with and, therefore, no respect for the concept of self-defense and revolution. And they have no capacity to fathom what such an endeavor would entail. This unknown scenario inspires fear in them — a fear of struggle, a fear of failure and a fear of death.

While taking action from a position of love for one’s fellow man is indeed noble, it is sometimes not enough in the face of pure evil — the kind of evil inherent in the ranks of elitism and the globalist ideology. It is important to keep at least one foot on the ground when building a movement of dissent and realize that while maintaining the moral high ground is paramount, there are limitations to what peaceful resistance can accomplish, depending on the opponent. If you are not prepared to use both peaceful means and physical defense if necessary, your movement will ultimately fail against an enemy without conscience.

Never before in history have humans been so dismissive of the self-defense concept when it comes to government, and I attribute this to clever conditioning and to an ingrained and powerful fear. Here are some of the most commonly heard arguments against physical revolution and why they are either ill-conceived or outright disingenuous.

Revolution Is Morally Wrong?

I find the attitude of moral superiority of the nonviolence crowd rather disconcerting at times and, in many ways, dishonest. It is very common to run into nonviolence proponents who are not satisfied with their own personal choice of pacifism alone. In many cases, they will attack or undermine other parts of the movement preparing for self-defense on the basis that even mere preparation is somehow akin to physical aggression. These people are never satisfied until everyone in the movement meets their “high standards” of activist purity.

In the end, I think their position is less about a regard for peace than it is about a regard for their own egos. People in general tend to support the formation of taboos (as opposed to honest principles) in order to gain what they see as the moral upper hand over others. They invent a condition of arbitrary piety around themselves in an act of self-elevation that does not constitute true morality.

Anyone who makes self-defense a taboo is not only living in a fantasy land outside the inherent structures of natural law, he is also likely doing so because he enjoys the sense of social superiority such a position affords. In this way many of the more irrational nonviolence activists are, in fact, no better that the raving acolytes of the cult of political correctness.

Physical self-defense against tyranny is not only necessary, but entirely honorable. When the violence of an individual is thwarted by defense, when a potential thief robs the wrong house, when a rape is prevented by an armed and prepared woman or when a potential murderer is shot dead by a citizen who refused to be a victim, our society cheers. But when someone suggests that the same measures be taken against a violent and corrupt government, people suddenly claim moral hazard.

There is no difference between the act of defending oneself against a common criminal and defending oneself against a criminal government. I would venture to say that self-defense is a moral imperative more vital to the survival of peace and freedom than any other.

Revolution Is Futile And The Enemy Is Too Strong?

When anti-defense initiates cannot effectively argue against the moral principles of physical revolution, they invariably change tactics, asserting instead that revolution is a useless endeavor that will end only in tragedy for the participants. I see this argument as a product of brainless nihilism rather than rationalism, and such a defeatist mindset invariably stems from cowardice rather than logic.

Nihilism is a powerful psychological force that destroys all hope and all positive pursuits. It is essentially the act of denying success before an endeavor is ever undertaken. Nihilists ensure their own failure because for them every scenario is a no-win scenario.

To them, I might seem like a blind optimist, while they see themselves as realists. In truth, pro-self-defense advocates are far more realistic. There is certainly a fundamental difference in the manner in which we look at the world. When I and those “optimists” like me see a problem, we look for a solution regardless of the scale of the threat; and if we cannot immediately find an obvious solution right away, we keep working until we do. There is no such thing as a no-win scenario for us. There is always a way to overcome an obstacle.

I would also point out the reality that, at bottom, it does not matter what the odds are in a revolution for freedom. When all is said and done, you will probably be confronted with two choices in the face of tyranny: fight and possibly die; or surrender, become a slave and probably still die. Those who argue against self-defense are in most cases trying to avoid the inevitability of this choice by creating non-options and non-solutions out of thin air. This is the opposite of realism.

Physical revolution requires a methodology of adaptivity and courage. Fear has no place in the mind of a freedom fighter, and nihilism is just as foreign to him. The goal of liberty will be accomplished. Totalitarians will be defeated. The size of the movement is not a factor. We expect that we will be in the minority. There is no other outcome but victory because we will allow no other outcome. Period. If we are proven wrong, then we are proven wrong; but it will not be due to a lack of trying.

In our age, arguments of the technological superiority of the enemy are often brandished as clear evidence of the uselessness of physical resistance. I think one could also make the argument that technological superiority in media manipulation and other fields could make nonviolent resistance useless as well. I’m not really sure why nihilists cling to the notion that technology matters at all, except that it perhaps offers an easy and lazy avenue of debate. The enemy has predator drones; therefore, revolution is futile.

In conjunction with Oath Keepers, I will soon be producing a video that will show the liberty movement how to build their own working thermal-evasion suits. Perhaps this will quell the incessant proclamations that drones and tanks and Apache helicopters mean anything at all in the face of asymmetric warfare. If the enemy can’t see you, they can’t kill you; and for every high-tech enemy, there is a low tech solution. Of course, I doubt this will mean anything to the nihilists, who don’t have the will to fight for anything except their belief that fighting back is useless.

Revolutions Are Always Co-Opted?

I have heard it argued by multiple sources within the liberty movement over the years that revolution is a poor option in defeating tyranny because of the cyclical nature of political and social change. They claim that all we have to do is look back at history to see that even when a revolution is successful in removing oligarchy, the resulting republic is invariably co-opted years or decades down the road. I agree, to a point.

The problem is not that the concept of revolution is ineffective. What these skeptics of physical rebellion tend to overlook or deliberately ignore is that no revolution in the history of man has ever gone far enough. Each revolution has targeted the corrupt government of their day, but no revolution has ever actually removed the elitist cabal behind those regimes — the same cabal of elites that has bankrolled nearly every tyranny over the past several centuries.

This is due in part to the fact that knowledge of who these elites are was not widespread. Today, for the first time ever, mankind has full access to information on who the globalists are and what they want. In fact, the elites barely hide who they are or what their intentions are anymore. One can simply look up the roster of organization like Bilderberg, Tavistock, the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations, the International Monetary Fund, the Bank for International Settlements, etc. At least in the liberty movement, we know who the real enemy is.

Co-option is always a threat if you do not know who the enemy is. A revolution against the Obama administration alone, for example, would be useless because President Obama is nothing but a puppet, a mascot playing a role. Removing middlemen is a half-measure, and anyone who tries to lead you into revolution on the premise that Obama alone is the source of your troubles is probably an elitist leading you toward disaster. If you are not removing the root of the threat, then the threat will persist.

Co-option also occurs when people become obsessed with the idea of popular top-down leadership rather than bottom-up decentralized resistance. If you are out there looking for the next George Washington on a white horse to save you from tyranny, then you will eventually get him; but he may not be at all what he seems. Beware of generals and top brass suddenly in support of revolution. Beware of any notion of military coup. Beware of any revolution that uses political party divisions as a motivator. Beware of any government with a central bank that wishes to bankroll your revolution. Stay decentralized and refuse any push for top-down leadership. This is the only way to avoid co-option.

Revolution Solves Nothing Because Mankind Is ‘Predisposed’ To Tyranny?

The great lie being injected into the movement over the past few years is that removal of the elites will solve nothing because the “real problem” is the corrupt nature of humanity in general and that if we remove one set of elites, they will simply be replaced with another set, as if society is fatally predisposed to develop an elitist class. This is the most vapid form of defeatist garbage ever regurgitated by nihilists.

First, we have no idea whatsoever what life would be like without the globalist network because we have never lived in a society in which they have been removed, even for a single generation. I think early America after the revolution is the only example I can find of a society free from most elitist controls, and the prosperity that developed in that environment leads me to believe that removal of the entire elitist framework would result in undeniable positive changes for the world. Why else would the globalists spend the past two centuries attempting to dismantle the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?

Second, if mankind is so “predisposed” to become naturally subservient to an elitist class, why do the elites feel so compelled to manipulate the masses with complex forms of propaganda and fear tactics? Why go through all the trouble of engineering economic disparity and war? What is the point if we are all dumb animals just waiting to be ruled? The argument is nonsense. The elites spend billions of dollars, if not trillions of dollars, in capital and go to such extremes because oligarchy is not a natural state of man. It is so unnatural that the elites are forced to expend constant energy trying to keep us from progressing away from the slave dynamic.

I believe a revolution is indeed necessary, a final revolution to remove the influence of the globalist cult once and for all — not only their puppet governments, puppet political parties and puppet despots, but the globalists themselves. Will bad men still exist in this world? Of course they will. But the kind of advanced and well-organized internationlist machine that thrives today will no longer exist. To save a patient poisoned to the extreme, the patient must be purged until his body can recover on its own. The elites are a poison that must be physically removed from the human system.