Oath Keepers: “Feds accomplices to school killings…” (Or, “Pot, meet Kettle”)

In General Information on December 15, 2012 at 10:38 am


Stewart Rhodes, founder of Oath Keepers, published a statement shortly after the tragic and horrific murders of schoolchildren in Connecticut. In his statement, Rhodes issued an indictment of the American central state as accomplices to the killings.

Rhodes did so by alleging that federal laws regulating possession and use of firearms facilitated the killer: particularly as those regulations apply to public school grounds.

I agree.

But Mr. Rhodes neglected to acknowledge the complicity of law enforcement, including his vaunted Oath Keepers, who enforce those regulations and who serve in bowing obedience to the central state.

Rhodes closed his statement with an assertion that, had a school employee been armed, there may have been a chance to save the lives of the children. He makes special mention of his musing that “…one of the teachers may have been a veteran with the training and skill to use a firearm if one had been available”.

Two points:

First: If a school employee would have had a firearm and the firearm’s presence had become known to a school administrator, the police would have been summoned and the employee would have been tossed, by the police, into a cage. Oath Keepers all over America gleefully enforce laws prohibiting mere serfs from possessing firearms without the proper papers from De Massa or in an area where De Massa says serfs may not possess them.

Second: Rhodes belies his belief in the superiority of men and women adorned in official costumes of the state when he wistfully muses “one of the teachers may have been a veteran”. It may come as a surprise to Mr. Rhodes to learn that many civilian, non-veterans are highly competent with weapons. The fact that a person now wears, or once wore, an official costume of the state as a police officer or as one of its hired killers in the military does not magically impart marksmanship skill. As a firearms instructor, Rhodes probably knows this but could not set aside his belief in the natural superiority of the Praetorians.

At his statement’s core, Rhodes railed at government edicts that disarm ordinary folk or intimidate them from doing so with threats of prison time.

But Mr. Rhodes, who apprehends and cages the people who dare to violate those edicts?

Congress? SCOTUS? POTUS?


Your colleagues in ‘law enforcement’ do it, Mr. Rhodes.

I am willing to bet you the cop’s lunch of a convenience store day-old wiener that every one of your treasured Oath Keepers has arrested some poor slob for a weapons violation based on some arbitrarily set rule or because the poor slob didn’t have a valid carry permit from De Massa.

By damning the federal government as accomplices to the killings, Rhodes damns himself and his organization.

If Rhodes and his merry band of Oath Keepers want to find accomplices to yesterday’s horrendous crime, they should look in a mirror. Law enforcement officers, many of them Oath Keepers, facilitated the killings by enforcing laws Rhodes claims to abhor.

They hate the laws they enforce, but do it anyway. Why?

Mr. Rhodes’ vaunted Oath Keepers like their jobs as Praetorians for the ruling class. Their concealed carry permits are ‘good anywhere’. If they are stopped by one of their fellow tax collectors in a traffic stop, they simply whip out their Official Overseer Papers and Badge as issued by De Massa. They don’t need to account to the detaining officer why they need to carry a gun or ‘assume the position’ until their carry permit from De Massa is validated.

Consequently, I agree with the Southern Poverty Law Center’s assertion that Oath Keepers is a dangerous group.

Dangerous? How?

Their very existence lulls us into a dangerous belief that they will suddenly ‘stand down’ if they are ordered to violate our Constitutional protections.

Thus far, they crabbed away from their oaths and have cheerfully enforced every edict that made yesterday’s killings possible.

Those murdered schoolchildren naively believed that the police would protect them. They did not, because they could not. Worse, the officers those children thought would protect them make it easier (daily) for Death to find his prey.

  1. Your premise is pretty absurd, and far from logical. Not every cop in this country is an Oath Keeper, in fact, most of them aren’t. It is a personal choice and a difficult one at that for someone in law enforcement to make the leap and support civil liberties in conflict with the establishment, risking their jobs and perhaps their lives. You use a ridiculously broad brush to suggest that Oath Keepers is somehow responsible for the actions of every cop, not just the ones who were brave enough to take the step of joining the organization. How does that work, exactly?

    You also make the assertion that Oath Keeping cops are out there enforcing unconstitutional laws and trampling liberties. Yet, you show no specific examples of an Oath Keeper member doing this. Show us a SPECIFIC example of an Oath Keeper cop abusing civil liberties, instead of trying to con people with your rambling generalities.

    Finally, show an example of a teacher being arrested by an Oath Keeper for carrying a weapon on school property. You use this hypothetical scenario as if it is a factual event, yet, such a thing has never happened. Do you always use private fantasies to support your arguments, because I’ll tell you, it makes you look foolish.

  2. Thanks for reading, Brandon.

    Oath Keeper founder, Stewart Rhodes, and I are in complete agreement when he wrote of federal complicity in the recent mass murder in Connecticut. He is absolutely correct that it is abhorrent to disarm citizens and consequently deprive them of their natural right to life. I am asserting that there is equal complicity in LEOs enforcing any laws restricting free men from at will access to instruments of self-preservation (e.g. firearms).

    Mr. Rhodes laid down (rightly!) the gauntlet for legislators who write and approve laws designed to disarm citizens. I am similarly expecting his officer/members not to enforce laws designed to turn citizens into victims. For that, you chastise me?

    At the risk of invoking Godwin’s Law, I will point out that Hitler did not murder one Jew. But there were willing executioners…just as there are LEOs willing to enforce weapons laws, issued by others, depriving free Americans of their right to self-defense.

    Now, to your ‘challenge’ that I provide “SPECIFIC” (sic) examples acceptable (to you).

    I’ll make it easier. Brandon, I will stipulate agreement with your assertion, ‘Not every cop is an Oath Keeper, in fact, (sic) most of them aren’t.”

    This stipulation trims our potential sample size (otherwise requiring us to poll every American edict enforcer for his/her weapons charge-related activity and then correlating it to Oath Keeper membership).

    Let members of Oath Keepers tell their stories.

    If you are an Oath Keeper, let’s get some incident details where you (a member/officer) refused to arrest/detain/cite a citizen who carried a firearm onto any school property in violation of applicable laws and where there was a complaint or request for a police investigation of the incident by any person. Why limit it to teachers? A broader category of individuals involved in the encounter should favor your side of the argument.

    [Edit: Brandon, you state: “Finally, show an example of a teacher being arrested by an Oath Keeper for carrying a weapon on school property. You use this hypothetical scenario as if it is a factual event, yet, such a thing has never happened (emphasis added).” You are declaring that you have personal knowledge that ‘such a thing never happened’. You have now declared a ‘fact’. I am asking you to back up your declaration with data that is as ‘specific’ as you demand of me. End Edit]

    Submissions should include: The date, time, and location (school district and school name) where the encounter occurred, the name (and contact info) of the reporting party, the names (department name/address and unique identifiers – i.e. badge numbers and contact info) for all responding officers, the name and contact info for the citizen encountered/investigated, statements from the complainant/suspect/witnesses that the refusing officer cited his status as an Oath Keeper as his/her reason for declining to arrest/detain/cite the citizen at interest, and the officer’s evidence (sworn statement) that he was a member of Oath Keepers at the time of the incident.

    Submitters will be required to provide notarized statements attesting that any information they provide is 1) public record, or 2) released with the informed consent of all involved, and 3) true to their best understanding and knowledge of the incident, and 4) its provision and subsequent publication does not violate any federal, state, or local law.

    Brandon, I would honestly love to publish a retraction. I would love to be wrong. I deeply fear that I am not. If there are Oath Keepers out there who can provide objectively verifiable evidence that they refuse(d) to enforce disarming laws in the face of a complaint or request for investigation, I desperately want to tell their heroic story.

    Mr. Rhodes’ latest commentary raised the bar for his members. I’m holding his edict-enforcers to the same standard he established for the edict-issuers.

    It’s only fair.

    Submissions may be sent to

    Again, thanks for reading. Please accept my wishes for a safe and pleasurable holiday season.


  3. Asking someone to disprove a negative is not the same as making a point. You do understand this, right?

    By your logic, Oath Keeper members are guilty until proven innocent. Sorry, that’s not how it works. YOU need to support your argument with tangible facts. If YOU are going to make the claim that Oath Keeper members are complicit in the enforcement of unconstitutional law, then show us the evidence. By your response, I am going to take a guess and say you have no evidence.

    It is not my job or the job of Oath Keepers to give testimony to every broad based negative criticism no matter how unfounded, just so they can prove that they meet every critic’s standards. You need to show specific examples of how they do not meet your standards, and then we can argue about whether your standards are practical. Please legitimize your position with real examples.

    • Brandon: You specifically stated, “Finally, show an example of a teacher being arrested by an Oath Keeper for carrying a weapon on school property. You use this hypothetical scenario as if it is a factual event, yet, such a thing has never happened.” You could substantiate your claim, but you refuse to do so. Produce an Oath Keeper officer who has refused to arrest a civilian for carrying a concealed weapon in a weapons-free school zone. It should be easy for you to do. It would have been newsworthy and would have been widely reported. I’ve looked…found nothing. In today’s non-permissive firearms environment, a complainant/school administrator would beat feet to the media, the officer’s bosses, local officials, state officials, and the feds (and howl at the moon)…to report the (in his mind) “Wack-job officer” who refused to arrest a person for having a firearm in a school zone and state his reason was that he is an “Oath Keeper”. Your failure to do so will force me to assume you are a mere troll of the kind who persists in making absurd demands for ‘supporting data’ in order to stymie the discussion. Best wishes!

  4. It’s time to move on. What is taking place above is not debate. It is bickering.

    It is Phyne Dyning’s position to agree with the Oath Keeper founder when he stated, that by legislating to disarm everyone inside of schools, federal lawmakers shared complicity with the Sandy Hook murderer. It is also Phyne Dyning’s position that enforcement of those enacted laws also facilitated those killings. Therefore, the cops themselves (all of them) are complicit.

    Phyne Dyning does not use ‘weasel words’ such as, “Most cops are good people trying to do a good job.” There is no such creature as a “good cop”. They willingly enforce taxation (theft) by abducting tax resisters and tossing them into cages at gunpoint. They prowl the public way to extract tribute in the form of ‘fines’; collected laughably in the name of ‘public safety’. [Even the merest speeding ticket is absurd: A fine (tax) is levied if a motorist exceeds an arbitrarily set ‘speed limit’ (65mph is ‘okay’, but 66mph and above is ‘unsafe’ and taxable)]. And, with regard to firearms, cops routinely disarm and jail peaceful individuals simply because they failed to get a permission slip from ‘De Massa’ to protect themselves.

    Finally, with regard to “Oath Keepers” specifically:

    The organization’s very existence says, “The United States government is corrupt and dangerous and it is likely capable of gross infringements of the human rights (let alone Constitutional rights) of its citizens. We are so fearful it may carry out actions we have enumerated as specific infringements that we have taken an oath not to be participants in them. But, until then, we will be perfectly happy to work for that corrupt and dangerous government.”

    A little complicity is ‘okay’?

    “Brandon” (above) rebutted, “By your logic, Oath Keeper members are guilty until proven innocent. Sorry, that’s not how it works.”

    Yes, Brandon, that’s exactly how it works when you willingly and willfully associate with thugs, bullies, and armed robbers (i.e. your fellow ‘officers’). One cannot do so without getting smeared with the stain of complicity.

    The ONLY ethical and moral choice for any police officer, especially those calling themselves “oath keepers” is to resign. Resign now…while your hands are still relatively clean.

    With that, it is time to move along.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: