What's Going on at the Bundy Ranch?

Because they don't want to associate with militia.

They don't want the word "Militia" associated with them. They have avoided any connection to Militia,, though some Militia are also oathkeepers.

militia is a dirty word. The SPLC says so..


Well, they are there and the name Oath Keepers has been associated with this situation. If they didn't want to "sully the OK name", since the militia was already there, they could have left their OK garb at home and just come as people rather than as OK members.
 
Well, they are there and the name Oath Keepers has been associated with this situation. If they didn't want to "sully the OK name", since the militia was already there, they could have left their OK garb at home and just come as people rather than as OK members.

Must spread some around first...you know...^This^
 
Why is this “drone-bombing” issue being so misconstrued? Does Eric Holder even possess the authority to sanction a military action anyplace, let alone inside of a state?

That is a vastly excessive escalation-of-force, from completely pulling out to firing missiles. What is more likely that he authorize a drone-bombing on the Bundy’s ranch or that he authorized covert drone-surveillance on the entire perimeter of the Bundy’s ranch (especially, since their ground-forces were pulled for fear of their own safety)? I would say the later is likely the case.

All conspiracies aside, a drone-bombing on Nevada soil over desert turtles, an ignored injunction, or the Reid’s aspirations for China dolls, really?

It seems to me that proffering serious debate on this issue paints us all as nonsensical loons who are incapable of discerning the fun of fiction from reality.
 
Why is this “drone-bombing” issue being so misconstrued? Does Eric Holder even possess the authority to sanction a military action anyplace, let alone inside of a state?

That is a vastly excessive escalation-of-force, from completely pulling out to firing missiles. What is more likely that he authorize a drone-bombing on the Bundy’s ranch or that he authorized covert drone-surveillance on the entire perimeter of the Bundy’s ranch (especially, since their ground-forces were pulled for fear of their own safety)? I would say the later is likely the case.

All conspiracies aside, a drone-bombing on Nevada soil over desert turtles, an ignored injunction, or the Reid’s aspirations for China dolls, really?

It seems to me that proffering serious debate on this issue paints us all as nonsensical loons who are incapable of discerning the fun of fiction from reality.

Actually the theory is that the drone info was fed to them as a psyop fed through one of the fed infiltrators or someone with legitimate connections who fed them disinfo. They didn't think it was very plausible either, but if you read the FB post there are SWAT teams and snipers posted up around the ranch so they decided not to withhold the info from others even though they knew it probably was disinfo.
 
OK, as I mentioned before, has an identity crisis: the purpose of the group, the activities it decides to undertake, are unclear and there is a definite lack of unity of purpose among the membership.

As one who has studied the military oath and its various changes, as well as the most meaningful aspects of the 1787 constitution to our collective future, I agree with Tod's perspective wholeheartedly.

I had become aware of OK only months after it got its first forum and worked there to develop a functional sense of constitutional defense based in the phrase "defend the constitution from enemies foreign and domestic". I noticed right away that OK openly put quality limits on what members would do that was unconstitutional, but could get no discussion going on constitutional defense. In fact, the notion of "alter or abolish" abusive government got me banned after I pointed out that Article V was the codified tool to do that.

I've studied secret societies for years; such as Masonry, the Illuminati and their roles in the formation of the NWO. Also the ancient Indigenous societies, which are better phrased as "unconscious", because they do not overtly intend secrecy. Indeed they see it as supremely dangerous when the unconscious is used with fear to create the secrecy. This study extends into all religions as well. Mormonism stood out with its more recent inception and bizarre beginnings in this country.

Overall I've concluded that human beings are controlled by their unconscious mind more than anything, and that what is consciously held quite often matters very little. The one thing that is consistently positive amongst them all is love and its role on human families working together to survive and evolve.

My point is I see love working in all of those mentioned organization people's despite the contradictory trappings our society fearfully holds of their unconscious foundations. Most importantly for all of us is to not allow obsession with unreasonable fears because; in reasoning everything we might know; love will protect us. Gods way is of love, knowledge and truth, and all of those groups know that.

Therefore, on the ground in Bunkerville, in what easily could be a grand unconscious theatre, there was no violent disaster. Meaning that love, knowledge and truth was in control. It is my opinion, and it is very well founded in reason, that the 1787 constitution must be upheld and the republic under it reinstated, OR, fear may gain the upper hand, whereupon this species begins its descent into oblivion. It was the principles of that constitution held in the hearts and minds of all involved that kept violence from overwhelming Bunkerville.

Our conscious focus on the principles that nurture love, knowledge and truth is paramount. It's tool to "alter or abolish", Article V is dangerous to fear, because that denies our capacity to know and use love, knowledge and truth.

With these things in mind, I encourage all to consider Tod's evaluation and encourage OK, particularly the LE members (I've communicated to a few some critical aspects of this with certified mail) to engage discussion and understanding of the principles of the 1787 constitution we can regenerate with Article V which will cause love, knowledge and truth to increasingly re-inhabit our human society while removing the control of unreasonable fears that threaten us from the darkness of unknowing.

This page has a logical process which can enable American people to unify behind the simple but profound principles we need to end this unknowing performance and return to the process God intended before this great test of darkness was fearfully imposed upon us.

http://algoxy.com/poly/principal_party.html
 
Last edited:
Well..I guess one could look at this all as a grand experiment in a Shtf scenario. In which case, we may be screwed. The last thing this situation needed was this internal drama, however if as Elias surmised we should assume that all militias may be infiltrated, then it was bound to happen. I am not a militia person. I did donate to OK for them to use as they see fit. Will see how this continues to unfold, perhaps this is what happens when a bunch of independent minded cusses attempt to centralize.
 
Why is this “drone-bombing” issue being so misconstrued?

Because,,if you had been reading around the web, both news and commentary, there have been calls for just such an action.
Mostly from the "lefty" side,, but not entirely.
Ever since the standoff and BLMs pull out. Add that with Harry Reid's threats,, and Declaration of Terrorism. It is a concern.

It would be very stupid,, it would be ineffective. (which kind of describes those in power)
 
Last edited:
Well..I guess one could look at this all as a grand experiment in a Shtf scenario. In which case, we may be screwed. The last thing this situation needed was this internal drama, however if as Elias surmised we should assume that all militias may be infiltrated, then it was bound to happen. I am not a militia person. I did donate to OK for them to use as they see fit. Will see how this continues to unfold, perhaps this is what happens when a bunch of independent minded cusses attempt to centralize.

Elias is not there.. And he is NOT Militia.. in fact talks like he is or was a cop.

The Oath Keepers (leadership) were not there putting their lives on the line. They were not muzzle to muzzle with the well armed BLM.

They showed up after the fact and tried to take the lead.

There are several militia groups, volunteers that answered the OMA call. Leaders from those groups all agreed to the Mission Statement.
Command is a shared command,, and is by vote and agreement.

There was not a problem till this incident.

And the timeline of events has been covered,, very well, here
http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/
 
That would be the OKs FB page,, I read that which is why I searched further.

Oath keepers have always been unfriendly towards the militia..

Wrong. Denying we are a militia and being unfriendly are two different things. If we are so unfriendly why would we send out food and equipment to the Bundy ranch?

On several occations.. going back to the july4patriot...

Wrong again Pete. I know Charles and I was there when Charles and Stewart agreed that OK would publicly stay out of his personal issues with his court case. In fact, it was Charles suggestion.

The fact is Mike V and Stewert Rhoades did not show up at the ranch till after the confrontation was over.

Wrong, or I should say you are half wrong here. Stewart WAS there on the 12th, which was the day of the confrontation. How do I know? Because I was there.

They did not organize the Militia that was there,,

Correct (finally ya got one right)

They did not supply security,,

Wrong. You don't consider providing food, water, and equipment (such as FLIR, Communication equipment, motion detectors) as supplying security? Or do you mean no members from OK did not work on security detail? Either way you are wrong on both accounts.

that was already being done.

True. We just added to the resources.

They did try to take it over.

Wrong. Take over what? The militia - no. The Bundys - no The supporters - no. What are you talking about and where or what is your source? And please don't tell me Ryan Payne.

Ryan Payne had been there for a week before,, and was coordinating the various Militia Groups that were there.
He was Clive Bundys choice as liaison.

Sounds like just the thing our government would do... send in infiltrators early, gain trust, sabotage those trying to do good (OK).

and if you watched the video,, all the Militia were pissed at what Rhoades did.. It was voted on by the several group leaders.

You think 20 guys in a circle jerk are all the militia? Sounds like you don't know what you are talking about. Have you been out there?

Rhoades tried to push the Militia out of the picture and claimed that OK was providing security.

Ok Pete, now it looks like you are just making shit up. Got any proof of that?

It was not,, and a few OKs stayed at the ranch after the order to bug out. They were welcome to stay.

They were welcome to stay AFTER Payne suggested Stewart be shot in the back. Most hospitable don't ya think?

But Stewart Rhoades was not in charge of shit there,,and had no business giving orders.

Wrong. Stewart WAS in charge of giving the supplies we brought to the militia, the Bundys and the supporters. Stewart never claimed he was in charge of the militia or anything else out there other than his organization.

It was not the Oath Keepers event,, They were latecomers to the party.

OK never claimed it was THEIR event. And what do you mean by latecomers? There were several OKers there very early on. My first day out there was on the 10th. Stewart was there on the 12th (which was the day of the confrontation).

Pete, it is obvious you don't trust Stewart. You think he threw Charles (july4patriot) under the bus and you have had a chip on you shoulder ever since. It looks to me like you have Militia worship. Is this why you trust this Payne dude over Stewart? Stewart and OK have a proven track record of standing up for the constitution. And no, I don't worship Stewart. As I have stated, he has made mistakes but any mistake made was a decision made with the best of intentions. However, I do trust Stewart Rhodes... just like many here at RPF.
 
That they are there and we are not.
I have been following this from the breaking news. When the Media reported that the militia was coming to the ranch they were days behind the curve.
They were already there AND HAD BEEN FOR DAYS. (They had already scouted BLM sniper positions and filled them with cow shit)

Ryan was one of the organizers that called for militia. and has been there since before it was news.

You sure are confident that this Payne dude is for real. I expect an apology when he is proven otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Everyone darn one of us is a Militia - OathKeeper - name tag "militia" or not.

Since when is a select few "militia" ?? :cool:
 
Everyone darn one of us is a Militia - OathKeeper - name tag "militia" or not.

Since when is a select few "militia" ?? :cool:

We all should be..
But the fact is the concept of Militia,, and the word have been maligned for years. Oath Keepers (organization) has opposed any connection to Militia.
That was where july4patriot and the Oath Keepers parted company.. And did so by agreement.
Charles saw the training and support of militia as more important than the political front.
Long before the Frame up on bogus charges.

I appreciated the Oath Keepers standing up in another case,, of child abduction by CPS.
I strongly disagree with their position on the Militia,, but they are reaching out to Police that believe the Militia is the enemy. (see MIAC or any other training material) That is a serious conflict of interests.

And I am not trying to Bash Oath Keepers.. But This was stupid. And they should own that,, correct it, and learn from it,, rather than to attack the folks that were there protecting the Bundy Ranch before they even got involved.


And calling it "like a bomb threat at a school" and evacuating?

What about the Bundy's (the folks that they were there to protect and defend)?
Did they evacuate them?

NO.
Learn from it. So you never repeat it. Don't try to act like it was not wrong.
 
Last edited:
Elias is not there.. And he is NOT Militia.. in fact talks like he is or was a cop.

The Oath Keepers (leadership) were not there putting their lives on the line. They were not muzzle to muzzle with the well armed BLM.

They showed up after the fact and tried to take the lead.

There are several militia groups, volunteers that answered the OMA call. Leaders from those groups all agreed to the Mission Statement.
Command is a shared command,, and is by vote and agreement.

There was not a problem till this incident.

And the timeline of events has been covered,, very well, here
http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/


Not sure why you keep trying to put people on the defensive here. I didn't say he was there. Was going by what he said in the update he posted. I am neither defending nor condemning. As far as I am concerned everything is hearsay because I wasn't there..were you?
 
Back
Top