Showing posts with label Oathkeepers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Oathkeepers. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 23, 2013

Terrorists Win: Fascist Police Shred 4th Amendment In Watertown MA

Where are the Oathkeepers now, huh?


“The time is now near at hand which must probably determine, whether Americans are to be, Freemen, or Slaves; whether they are to have any property they can call their own; whether their Houses, and Farms, are to be pillaged and destroyed, and they consigned to a State of Wretchedness from which no human efforts will probably deliver them. The fate of unborn Millions will now depend, under God, on the Courage and Conduct of this army” – Gen. George Washington, to his troops before the battle of Long Island



After violating the 4th Amendment rights of just about everybody in Watertown, Massachusetts, the incompetent police couldn't find Tsarnaev, but the wretched of Watertown meekly groveled and even thanked their oppressors.

"Haende Hoch!" the Gestapo cries in the video, except in English. You'll be hearing this next at your local train station, bus stop and at road checkpoints manned by Obama's ever-expanding army of TSA goons, just as you do now at every airport. 

Video here.

Story here.




Wednesday, January 16, 2013

"A 30 Round Magazine Might Be Too Small"

". . . from my cold dead hands!"
Erick Erickson summarizes well the historical background for the 2nd Amendment, here, the point of which is that not only should individual Americans possess the very latest weaponry, but that as long as there are standing armies and militarized police forces in America, we can never really be free from impending tyranny, despite the existence of the Oathkeepers:


Many historians have come to view the American Revolution as a conservative revolution. The revolutionaries believed they were protecting their English rights from the Glorious Revolution of 1688. They were, in effect, revolting to demand the rights they thought they already had as English citizens. It is why, for much of 1775, they petitioned the King, not Parliament, for help because they had, separated by distance and time, not kept up with the legal evolution of the British constitutional monarchy in relation to Parliament. The colonists believed themselves full English citizens and heirs of the Glorious Revolution.

One of the rights that came out of the Bill of Rights of 1689 in England following the Glorious Revolution was a right to bear arms for defense against the state. The English Bill of Rights accused King James II of disarming protestants in England. That Bill of Rights included the language “That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.”

The Americans, however, saw the British government, via Parliament, begin curtailing the rights of the citizenry in the American colonies. When they formed the federal government with ratification of the Constitution, the colonists, now Americans, were deeply skeptical of a concentrated federal power, let alone standing armies to exercise power on behalf of a government. This is why, originally, the colonists chose to require unanimity for all federal action under the Articles of Confederation that the Constitution would replace. Likewise, it is why many early state constitutions gave both an explicit right to keep and bear arms, but also instructed that standing armies in times of peace should not be maintained.

Prior to the Civil War, the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government and that first Congress dropped references to “as allowed by Law” that had been in the English Bill of Rights. The Founders intended that Congress was to make no law curtailing the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms.

In other words, removing "as allowed by Law" means the right to keep and bear arms is not susceptible of further modification by legislative, or executive, action. Or for that matter by judicial action. The Second Amendment is a settled matter. Americans have simply forgotten this, and to the extent they have are already slaves.

Friday, October 28, 2011

Marines Embrace Occupy Wall Street, Threaten Tipping Point.

Because one of their own got injured, not on substantive grounds.

Story here:

So I ask all of you, can you too sense the tipping point? When will enough be enough? If not now, when? I feel the problem is that the average Joe citizen is ignorant and comfortable. These, in addition to selfishness have become the standard for the majority of the population. As long as people are comfortable they remain silent. Well, I’m really . . . uncomfortable and I’m sick of seeing this . . . happening. The Occupy protests that are going on are our first glimmer of hope.

Probably never heard of the Tea Party, or Oathkeepers, or the November 2010 elections.

Jarheads. Hard on the outside, empty on the inside.

Friday, January 14, 2011

Here Comes the Repression: Your Representative or Senator May Accuse You to the FBI

Newly elected Republican Billy Long, MO-7, is going after a political opponent in his home district, a conservative blogger no less, named Clay Bowler, aka Bungalow Bill.

Looks like one hell of an abuse of federal power to me, trying to squelch a constituent's freedom of speech, intimidate him, and reduce him to servility while they go about their business of picking our pockets clean and shoveling the shit down our throats.

Hey, thanks Billy, you giant statist toadie. 

You can also thank the Capitol security police for facilitating this newest and ominous expression of police state power, reported here:

The local sheriff told KSRP that Capitol police are actively soliciting the names of possible threats from members of Congress in the wake of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’s assassination attempt. And he admitted there are more names his office is looking into — names that came from Long.


Obviously there are no Oathkeepers among the Capitol police.

Time to lawyer up.